France wants a role mediating in Lebanon, but it is not an impartial broker, writes Abdallah El-Ashaal* Lebanese rival factions have met on the outskirts of Paris, by invitation of French President Nicolas Sarkozy, to look for a way out of the current crisis. Given the intricacy of the current crisis, the fact that the meeting even took place is a considerable achievement. But what exactly is France trying to do, and could it succeed? France's role in the Lebanese crisis is governed by a number of factors, some having to do with the shift that is taking place in its policy in the region. France has a political legacy in Lebanon, and most Lebanese used to count on France's support and backing. However, when the recent crisis erupted, France seemed incapable of helping out. The Saudis intervened with some success, but only after rival factions were at the end of their rope. Since 2004, the French have been rethinking their policy on Lebanon. Since the assassination of the prime minister, Rafiq Al-Hariri on 14 February 2005, France spearheaded international pressure on Syria. It was Paris that submitted Resolution 1559 to the UN Security Council. And many argue that France has taken sides with the Israelis and the Americans against Hizbullah, Iran and Hamas. France has discontinued the relay of Al-Manar television channel. It has failed to oppose the European-US decision to list Hizbullah as a terror group. With Sarkozy in power, many expect Paris to toe the US and Israeli line even more faithfully. In a nutshell, France is trying to have its cake and eat it. During the Israeli offensive in 2006, France pretended to be worried about Lebanon, and yet it submitted -- together with Washington -- Resolution 1701. That resolution deprived Lebanon of its right to ask for compensation for the damage sustained during the war, brought international forces into Lebanon, got the army to deploy in the south, expelled Hizbullah from its positions, and treated the latter as an illegitimate group. France has antagonised both Syria and Hizbullah, while placating Israel, the Lebanese government and the 14 March forces. Now France wants Hizbullah and the opposition to take it seriously as a mediator, yet any mediation done by France would have to terminate Syrian and Iranian influence in Lebanon. Syria has been calling the shots in Lebanon since the mid-1970s, a role France would love to have. The French have always craved a part in settling the Arab-Israeli conflict, at least as far as Lebanon is concerned. The French already have a new project for the southern Mediterranean, a region in which both Lebanon and Israel belong. The French clearly want to inherit the Syrian role, perhaps even obviate the need for an Arab League role. But that's not going to be easy. First of all, siding with the Americans, as the French are likely to do, would prove problematic, despite the fact that some Arab regimes have just done that. Also, Syria and Iran are not going to retreat quietly from the scene. In conclusion, the French role is unlikely to lead to a breakthrough in Lebanon. France cannot antagonise the Lebanese opposition, placate the Americans, and be a successful mediator all at once. The best the French can do for now is get the Lebanese rival factions to talk. * The writer is former assistant to the Egyptian foreign minister.
