Listen to the article
The French presidential envoy Jean-Yves Le Drian has begun his mission, despite harrowing local disagreements and a total lack of clarity from the foreign States regarding the election of a new head of State in Lebanon.
According to a presidential candidate, Le Drian has a new plan: to fill the void until a president is elected, and to listen to all Lebanese parties as they share their propositions to end the political deadlock. The former minister of foreign affairs – who significantly knows about the current crisis – will then send a report about his first visit to President Emmanuel Macron and the 4 States from the Paris conference.
Clearly, France’s position has changed: while it expected the election of a president in June, it is now calling for a settlement. The potential sanctions it had agreed upon with the European Union, and the relevant mechanism it had put in place with the US, have suddenly evaporated.
Why did the French initiative fail? According to a Western diplomat, the crisis will not end soon, and it may take some time before a solution is found following the agreements between the US and Iran on one hand, and Saudi Arabia and Iran on the other. Some opposition members ascribe the presidential vacuum to the fact that certain parties have a regional agenda and are endeavoring to impose their allies’ vision on Lebanon. In light of these events, France has decided to update its initiative and alter its plan. It will therefore revert back to the 4 States for a solution. The presidential session held on June 14 is further proof that Lebanon’s destiny is still closely tied to the region’s. If a second session had been convened, as Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berry promised Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland, Lebanon would have had a president by now. However, in favor of Hezbollah, Berry did not keep his promise. Indeed, Hezbollah feared the election of the opposition’s candidate Jihad Azour – he obtained 60 votes – and the subsequent loss of its leverage in the region.
According to a former minister, elections in Lebanon are not about candidates per se, but about political choices, and this is precisely why the deadlock persists. This is also the reason why local sides and foreign parties, such as the Vatican, are refusing to hold a constituent congress for Lebanon – as opposed to the axis of resistance – to agree on a president, in order to avoid creating a new Lebanon with a new Taif Agreement. In parallel, some foreign and local parties perceive Taif as an uncrossable line and are calling for the election of a president as a top priority before considering the reforms that would safeguard the constitution. After all, electing a president and forming a government does not require months and years, as is the case now. For this reason, some diplomatic circles are working towards keeping the State and its institutions at a safe distance from political conflict.
The local political actors are now awaiting Le Drian’s second visit which should bring about proposals for a solution. Additionally, a foreign official working in collaboration with the five States believes that Le Drian’s report is a potential roadmap that these same five States would enforce, taking advantage of the progress made in the negotiations between the US and Iran, as well as Saudi Arabia and Iran. This is also an opportunity for these countries to capitalize on their newfound relations with Iran, hence asking the latter to stop instrumentalizing Lebanon and interfering with its affairs – in accordance with the third of provision of the Beijing Agreement –, to refrain from sending weapons to specific parties under any name, and to respect Lebanon’s sovereignty as well as its institutions.
Will Le Drian’s mission constitute a decent exit for France from the 5 States’ conference which it sponsored, so that the decision becomes that of these 4 States instead? Will Lebanon have a new president soon, or later on, in September? Regional changes hold the answers to these questions.
