The Lebanese were awaiting Charles de Gaulle; instead they got Jacques Chirac. On April 4, the French president arrived in Beirut for a three-day official trip, and showed, through his distinctive style, that a great deal had changed in France's policy towards Lebanon since the late general was in power.
Mr. Chirac's visit was the first official visit to Lebanon by a foreign head-of-state since the end of the war. In a speech before the Lebanese parliament, the French president sounded many of the themes that have governed France's relations with Lebanon in the recent past, including France's support for Lebanese sovereignty and a return to institutional life in the country after the war. Mr. Chirac also looked forward to a Middle East at peace, in which Lebanon would play a central role in French regional affairs, particularly as a base of operations from where France could play a regional economic role.
Mr. Chirac's visit alone was a reaffirmation of France's backing for Lebanese sovereignty. Since the end of the war in 1990, Lebanese foreign policy has all but been conducted by Syria; the French president's visit to Beirut was a signal that Paris had reservations with this. Similarly, Mr. Chirac traveled to the southern town of Naqoura, the headquarters of the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), where he once again expressed France's support for Security Council resolution 425, which calls for an unconditional Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon.
What was perhaps most evident in Mr. Chirac's visit was the change in relations between France and its traditional allies in Lebanon, the Maronites. In reality, this change - which is more one of degree than of orientation - is not a new development. France has for some time sought an improvement in relations with Lebanon's Muslim communities. What Mr. Chirac's visit did, however, was to bring home what this meant in reality. While the French president did meet alone with the Maronite patriarch, Cardinal Nasrallah Sfayr, to hear the opposition's point of view, this was only done after Cardinal Sfayr demanded such a meeting from the Lebanese authorities. The French clearly affirmed that they regarded the Lebanese government as their main, and virtually sole, interlocutor on the Lebanese scene. What was significant, however, was that this position was translated into - and has been reinforced by - close personal ties between Mr. Chirac and the prime minister, Rafiq al-Hariri.
Both during and after his trip to Lebanon, Mr. Chirac took position on a number of issues, which, while favorable to Mr. Hariri, did not appear to necessarily be in France's best interests. One of the central themes developed by Mr. Chirac, for example, was the need for all parties to participate in the parliamentary elections scheduled for this summer. It was not the first time that the French president made such an argument. On a visit to Beirut several years ago as mayor of Paris, Mr. Chirac had called on Christians to participate in Lebanese political life. This had greatly satisfied Mr. Hariri, who had hosted Mr. Chirac's visit. It was badly received, however, in Christian circles, where it was seen as an implicit criticism of the election boycott of 1992.
In once again calling for widespread participation in elections, Mr. Chirac once again seemed to play down the somewhat irregular context in which the elections are being organized. Moreover, he may have put the French government in somewhat of a quagmire. If the elections are canceled, the French will be embarrassed. By calling on all sides to participate in the elections, France has implicitly taken on a responsibility to guarantee that they actually take place. On the other hand, if the elections occur but generate controversy, as appears increasingly likely, then France will be party to an undemocratic process. Under the circumstances, one wonders whether Mr. Chirac really had to take a strong position on elections at all, or whether he should have stuck to generalities.
Mr. Chirac did Mr. Hariri a second favor in May when he prevented the former army commander, General Michel Aoun, who is exiled in France, from giving a talk at the European parliament in Strasbourg. Under an agreement governing his exile, General Aoun is prohibited from playing a politically active role on French territory. However, French governments in the past been particularly flexible in allowing him room to express himself. Moreover, the European parliament building is not considered technically French territory. General Aoun responded to the French government's action by announcing that he was in reality a prisoner in France. The French promptly removed the security detail guarding him.
While there was something of the burlesque in the Aoun affair, the French government may have once again taken on a problem that it may not be able to solve satisfactorily. General Aoun's exile ends in late August, and the French action may have been a signal to the general that he should leave France soon afterwards. The French cannot send the general back to Beirut without first guaranteeing his security there. On the other hand, if, as appears probable, the Lebanese government and the Syrians block his return, France will be in the embarrassing position of having to keep the general. A third option - that General Aoun can be made to leave for a third country - is also not very likely, given that it could provoke a backlash among the general's political supporters in France. Many of them, including the head of the UDF parliamentary bloc, François Léotard, are parliamentary allies of Mr. Chirac's Neo-Gaullist RPR bloc. For the moment, the French government has time to maneuver, given that the general's residency card expires at the end of the year.
The French action against General Aoun was also inadvisable in that it unnecessarily alienated many Christians. While many Christians recognize that French policy towards their community has changed, this has never led to hostility towards France. France has long been seen as a counterweight to Syrian influence in Lebanon and U.S. predominance in the Middle East. However, Mr. Chirac's actions, in being directed at a popular Christian leader, undermined French efforts to appear non-partisan in Lebanese affairs. Once again, Mr. Chirac appeared to be acting in accordance with the narrow interests of the Lebanese government, and not with those of France. This could cost France down the road.