"Marianne", writer Omar Youssef Souleimane, ponders the gradual withdrawal of France from Lebanon and advocates a crucial return based on reconstruction alternatively than promises.
Just walk the streets of Beirut to see how much French gives way to English, especially among young people. Where French erstwhile dominated on signposts and store sites, English is now exhibited in a prominent place, even in the most traditionally French-speaking districts of the capital. France is no longer a “sensitive mother” of which the Lebanese rely, and Christians no longer feel a erstwhile attachment. It is not only the effect of ubiquitous American culture; it is also, and possibly above all, a disappointment that has grown over the years.
On August 6, 2020, 2 days after the detonation that destroyed Beirut port and killed more than 220 people, Emmanuel Macron passed through the ruins of the Gemmayzeh district, surrounded by a weeping crowd chanting "Long live France!". The president promised an global investigation, political reform, a fresh start. He promised to come back. The Lebanese believed him. any even signed a petition calling for the return of the French mandate. Over time, a “feeling mother” abandoned Lebanon, or at least that is the impression of many Lebanese today.
In the margins
When Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam was admitted to the Elysée Palace on 21 April, Emmanuel Macron stated that "France, as always, will stand by Lebanon". The Lebanese have heard besides many times. In January 2025, after returning to Beirut, the president of France met with a more restrained welcome. A female injured in the 4 August bombings asked him: "When you arrived in 2020, we were very disappointed." Emmanuel Macron replied, “I have not forgotten anything.” The Lebanese didn't forget either. In the same month, with Joseph Aoun's election as president and the creation of the government of Nawaf Salam, a ray of hope appeared in the country. At least Israeli raids stopped.
The fresh cabinet promised to face the monumental challenges: the economical crisis, the aftermath of war and political divisions. Nawaf Salam made this clear: "Rebuilding is not just a promise, it is simply a duty." But that hope was short-lived. Hezbollah has not expressed his willingness to lay down his weapon. On March 2, she fired her first missiles since the ceasefire, triggering a fresh wave of Israeli attacks and depriving tens of thousands of civilians of humanitarian aid. Lebanon again plunged into a nightmare.
France has sent 60 tons of humanitarian aid. She sought to open direct negotiations between Israel and Lebanon, exerting force through her diplomatic channels. Israel replied through its Ambassador to Washington: "We would like to keep the French as far distant from practically everything as possible, and especially from peace negotiations." This exclusion is the consequence of the gradual withdrawal of Paris from the Levant. France lacks military, economical or political power to impose its presence in a situation now dominated by the logic of the American-Israeli power. Her abroad policy has become, according to the diplomatic circulation, "declaratory diplomacy": press releases, appeals, condemnations, without real influence on the course of events.
On April 8, erstwhile hundreds of civilians were killed under bombings in Beirut, Emmanuel Macron called Donald Trump, demanding an extension of the ceasefire in Lebanon. According to the Lebanese paper "Nidaa al-Watan", he besides sent pictures of the harm to support his request. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu yet agreed to a ten-day truce, declaring that he had done so “at the request of my friend president Trump”, adding immediately that “the run against Hezbollah had not yet ended”. Not a word about Paris. The lesson is painful: France can inactive trigger diplomatic tensions, but it's not the 1 putting out the fire.
Build, not protect
During his visit to Nawaf Salam, Emmanuel Macron stated that the ceasefire should enable "the reconstruction of Lebanon and confederate Lebanon to let the return of all displaced people". He besides confirmed that France is ‘ready to keep its commitment on the spot’. It is in this commitment that France can play a role. Marshall's plan in this area could open up a new, universalist French-speaking presence throughout the region. Lebanon is the face of the mediate East, both in its tallness and fall.
From the 1960s to 2000, before Hezbollah gained the advantage and suppressed freedom of speech, this country served as a refuge for intellectuals fleeing the tyranny of the region. If France is to intervene there, it is to make this marina useful again, against the agenda of the Mullahs and Donald Trump. It inactive has real assets: UNIFIL, cultural ties, Lebanese diaspora in France and a recognised diplomatic tradition in arabian capitals. But these assets will only be valuable if Paris agrees to play a supporting role, not a leading role, as an intermediary alternatively than a self-appointed proconsul. possibly this is simply a fundamental problem. French relations with Lebanon have always oscillated between 2 incompatible roles: a caring parent and a strong influence. The first 1 is sympathetic, but not respectful. The second requires resources that France no longer has.
Author: Omar Youssef Souleimane
‘Au Lebanon, la France doit jouer un rôle de soutien et non de leadership,
d’accompagnateur plutôt que de proconsul’
(choice and crowd. PZ)
