Following the explosion of Beirut, the French President found himself in a pit of speculation and dissension.
On the 4th of August last year, a warehouse on the port of Beirut exploded causing the deaths of 202 people. The explosion left thousands injured and around 300,000 homeless, causing a humanitarian crisis. Fortunately, the world rushed to provide a helping hand to succour the people who had been so badly affected: NGO’s offered funding and world leaders offered support. However, the presence and actions of one world leader added to the pre-existing layer of controversies. That world leader was Emmanuelle Macron, the President of France. He was accused of conveying neo-colonialist views in his comments concerning Franco-Lebanese relations. Why were his comments so controversial? The answer to that question lies within 20th century Franco-Lebanese history.
After the end of the 1st world war and the collapse of the Ottoman empire, Lebanon became a French protectorate (1923 – 1943). Under France’s administration, a confessional political system, that is to say one that combines religion and politics, was put in place. It was installed so that all religious groups in Lebanon would be equally represented in politics. However, the system was far from a fair one. The French government used the confessional system to empower the Christian Maronites by securing them a large degree of power in a system that was supposedly meant to equally represent all of the religious groups in Lebanon. Maronite Christians would be the only ones eligible for running for president and, although they were a minority, held an equal share of the seats in parliament. It is quite clear to see that France explicitly favoured the Christians over the Muslims. France’s influence extended even after Lebanon gained its independence in 1943. During the bloody and brutal Lebanese civil war the followed from 1975 until 1990, the French government once again backed the Christian militia against the PLO and other Muslim led forces. France provided military support to a war which eventually led to the deaths of 150,000 people.
The confessional system which had been put in place is still causing major political turmoil and inefficacy. France has also been meddling with Lebanon’s economy, making sure that she remains a beneficiary whilst Lebanon itself struggles in handling a complete economic catastrophe. This is particularly true when it comes to Franco Lebanese trade and banking – giving France an unjust power over Lebanon.
After understanding 20th - century Franco-Lebanese history, we can comprehend as to why people claim Macrons’ statements such as “France would never let Lebanon Go" carry a neo-colonialist weight with them, almost implying that Lebanon still is a protectorate. In addition, Macrons call for re-elections, are somewhat inappropriate – in knowing the effect of France’s influence in the past.
However, we must not ignore the corruption and inefficacy of the Lebanese government or blame these inefficiencies solely on the French. The fact that the Lebanese government, specifically its public sector, was so poor in its management of the contents within the warehouse that exploded, and the explosion itself, for example, meant that reform was indeed needed. The need for reform is accentuated by the government’s inability to kickstart GDP growth, improve national infrastructure – especially electrical infrastructure - address its trade deficits and deal with debt expenditure. Macron made sure to emphasize this in his speeches.
The problems mentioned above have driven the country into protest and others, around 55,000, to sign a petition to hand over Power to Macron. Thus, were the claims of Macron inflated and made to be perceived as neo-colonialist, whilst being rational given the plethora of government inefficiencies, or were they in fact carrying a sense of colonialism.
Comments