4 August 2020 is the day Beirut was torn into pieces by a gigantic explosion; lives, families, homes, and livelihoods were wrecked due to an unprecedented case of negligence. The blast was fuelled by 2,750 tonnes of precariously-stored ammonium nitrate, but the ignition cause is still unclear. Considering the destruction of the capital as the final straw in terms of government failings, all fingers immediately pointed to incompetent and corrupt ministers, who inevitably resigned a few days later.
Shortly after French president Emmanuel Macron visited Beirut in the aftermath of the blast, a petition emerged calling for Lebanon to be placed under a French mandate for the next 10 years. In a world where independence and self-determination rights are often thrown into the spotlight, the popular petition signed by over 60,000 people raises a handful of questions.
WHY FRANCE?
Lebanon has historical ties with France. Following WWI, Lebanon was placed under French military administration. The League of Nations went on to give France a formal mandate to administer Lebanon and Syria in 1923, mainly to protect minorities on what used to be the territory of the Ottoman Empire. Although reluctant to let go of its control over the region, the Free French government headed by Charles De Gaulle decided almost 20 years later to hold elections, which resulted in a victory for nationalists. Independence was formally proclaimed in 1943, but it was not until the total withdrawal of British and French troops in 1946 that Lebanon became wholly independent.
In light of this historical bond and motivated by their own agenda in the region, French presidents have been paying regular visits to Lebanon, especially in times of distress – which have unfortunately been frequent in the past decades.
IS A MANDATE PERMISSIBLE UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW?
“A mandate strictly speaking is obviously very improbable, this terminology refers to an institution which ended with the creation of the UN in 1945. The Lebanese state is sovereign and the UN charter does not contemplate such a case of taking over of [a country's] national affairs by another country,” said Yann Kerbrat, Professor of International Law at the Sorbonne Law School.
If the UN Security Council were to decide on international measures for Lebanon, the most probable outcome would be “economic or political sanctions against the government or the conditioning of international aid to compliance with specific requirements in terms of democracy and human rights.” Another possibility would be to make use of structures already in place, by assigning new missions to the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, but this would only happen if local authorities were unable to come to an agreement.
All in all, a mandate is generally regarded as a bizarre idea – Macron rightly pointed out to Beirut residents “it’s up to you to write your history.” The creator of the petition said he is under no illusion and is aware that France has its own problems to deal with. He added that he launched the petition hoping it would "show the extent of the Lebanese people's despair.”
IS A MANDATE TRULY DESIRABLE?
The country is bankrupt and repairing the recent damage would be a tall order even in good times. But would a return to the age of foreign administration be a viable solution? Are those who ask “what have we done with our independence?” the same as those who confided to the French president that they want the end of the regime? To that longing, Emmanuel Macron responded he would hold Lebanese leaders accountable and jumped at the chance to lay out the occidental roadmap: good governance, energy sector reforms, bank transparency and returning to the IMF.
But knowing that Lebanon has endured so much - from the civil war in 1975 to 1990, the occupation by Israel and Syria, the war with Israel in 2006 and the myriad of attacks and conflicts that have happened since - should such a resilient country depend on a roadmap made by others? Although understandable as a pure display of desperation, this petition can be perceived as preposterous in a world where Arab countries are not lacking foreign occupation, whether direct or indirect, as writer Omar Kaddour puts it.
In the aftermath of the explosion on 4 August 2020, despair lead a portion of the Lebanese population to ask to be administered by another country. Yes, Lebanon is crumbling under the weight of social fragmentation and cronyism. Yes, the petition is a cry for help. But mixing everything will not be helpful: autonomy is not the cause of Lebanon’s misfortune, corruption (among other things) is. Lebanon is not the only country which needs to learn to differentiate between the two. In a region characterised by the absence of peace, the resilient people of Lebanon have shown time and time again that they are tenacious. Instead of reverting to French administration, Lebanon should strive once more to go forward and use this traumatic explosion as a catalyst for real and profound change. As writer Dominique Eddé said in L’Orient-Le Jour “It is too soon to think and too late to wait. We do not have a choice anymore, we must unite. We must do everything to try to turn this shocking event into our last chance. We must put an end to this moribund power.”
Inès is a lawyer-linguist currently working independently in the fields of translation and multilingual analysis. She studied in France and the UK (Sorbonne Law School, University of Sheffield, ISIT Paris) and holds an MA in International studies and sustainable development, a diploma in legal translation and an MA in Public International Law and International Administration. Passionate about climate justice and human rights, she wrote her thesis on the role of non-state actors in the governance of global public goods and a research paper on the links between conflicts and climate change. Before providing freelance services, Inès worked for a climate-protection-NGO, a communication agency and UNESCO’s Priority Africa and External Relations department.