Ghada Halawi wrote in “Nidaa Al-Watan”:
After some debate and skepticism, the spokeswoman for the French Foreign Ministry decided on the date, announcing that the personal representative of French President Jean-Yves Le Drian would visit Lebanon between July 25 and 27. According to the statement, “the second visit comes within the framework of his mission of facilitation and mediation, with the aim of creating conditions conducive to reaching a consensual solution for all parties involved in electing the President of the Republic.”
The official statement comes after ambiguity and postponement, and then the announcement of repeated dates. The French presidential envoy returns and was preceded by the meeting of the Five-Year Committee in Doha, and the statement issued by the two meetings constituted a junction, as it completely excluded the idea of dialogue that France had put forward, and included a return to the language of threats and sanctions, which suggests that what happened in the region had become aggravated and rearranged positions on the basis of the old map. It was clear in Doha that America and Saudi Arabia had snatched the decision paper in the five-year committee on Lebanon.
The Doha meeting did not achieve much, and did not announce the mandate of France and its delegate. Rather, it came as an obituary for France’s old initiative or its endeavor that it tried to put forward in the five-year committee, but it did not find anyone to meet it halfway. And because the thing is mentioned by the thing, it also comes the day after Le Drian announced his intention to end his services and go to work in the private sector.
It is not known what Le Drian will bring to Lebanon and discuss with politicians during a visit that will not exceed a few hours, to appear as if he is carrying a formula that he will deposit in the custody of officials, or to carry an answer to it. Until yesterday evening, none of the politicians was aware of what the French delegate was carrying and what was reported about a new and different proposal, which political sources described as mere wishes far from reality.
And if the visit did not carry anything new, it would be added to the set of French failures. France’s prestige did not reach this level of decline in role and presence, nor did it reach what it reached during the Emmanuel Macron era. Opponents and friends acknowledge that France has lost its credibility since the explosion of the fourth of August and the frequent visits of its president and the talk of dialogue, then of reforming the regime.
France proposed a settlement over Suleiman Franjieh – Nawaf Salam. He did not leave her a friend in Lebanon, except for the two who adhered to her initiative and relied on her role in persuading Saudi Arabia. However, she backed down after it became clear to her that Saudi Arabia had not changed its opinion, and that the Sunni deputies had multiplied their confusion about the Kingdom’s position after lifting the “veto” on the candidates.
France left the duo in the middle of the road, and the Christians, especially the Maronites, were “upset” with it, so it could no longer be a partner. Since its first attempts, after the port explosion, it became clear that its presence in the equation became dim in exchange for clear and clear American-Saudi progress, as evidenced by the “Total” company’s announcement to stop drilling under American pressure in the aftermath of October 17, until the United States of America sponsored the demarcation agreement between Lebanon and Israel, and France deserved a statement of thanks for efforts that were not great.
Logically, when France tried to identify itself with Franjieh’s candidacy, it was more realistic in its dealings. I accepted the candidate of the most influential forces to save time, especially since the candidate is an ally of these forces, and he was previously the candidate of President Saad Hariri, and he would have been elected had it not been for Maarab’s understanding. She wanted to complete the presidential elections in order to devote herself to her commercial affairs and the assignments that she obtained from excavations to the port. Even her description among the Christian forces that she had become the “mother of deals” and was no longer the “compassionate mother” after Christian parties objected to her positions on the presidency of the republic and the echoes of these parties’ objection reached the Vatican, so she was forced to send Le Drian to Beirut to announce the clinical death of the Franjieh-peace equation, and to lose on both fronts her relationship with the duo and with the Christians as well.
No one counts on the visit, and everyone acknowledges that the presidential elections have been postponed to an indefinite date, and that they are subject to developments in US-Iranian communication to resolve outstanding issues related to the region, including Lebanon. However, Le Drian’s second visit comes, according to the official French statement, as a return to the beginning, to return, discuss and try to find conditions in a country that is difficult to solve, with the presence of two teams, both of which have the ability to disrupt. Last time he said it behind the scenes that dialogue is a necessity, but about the system. A loose and different phrase. As long as he knows the difficulty of dialogue and the difficulty of agreeing on Franjieh, Jihad Azour, or the third option, what is he doing? And what does he have? Tomorrow for the Lebanese is near.
2023-07-25 03:26:14
#ambiguity #postponement.. #Ludrian #Lebanon
