After World War I, the allies (led by Britain and France) established an international political framework that would serve their interests in the long term. World War II witnessed the ascendancy of America and thereafter the removal of European powers from most of their former colonies.
Syria, which was previously a French colony (“mandate”) and in its direct sphere of influence, was replaced by American hegemony as Hafez Assad stepped to power in 1971.
The Assad regime has been a cornerstone for America’s strategic interests in the region for the past 4 decades[1]. It readily pursued American objectives during the First Gulf War in 1991. It ousted European influence in Lebanon during its civil war through a military occupation patronised by America. It has consistently played an active role in America’s “War on Terror” post 9-11.
The Arab Spring brought with it risks and opportunities for many world powers, and a chance to finally shake up the balance of power in this important region after many decades of autocratic “stability” which nonetheless always threatened to boil over given people’s underlying anger with the status quo. For some countries like France, they saw this as an opportunity to challenge America’s dominance in the region.
France has in recent years stepped up its impudence in challenging American influence and in turn seeking to execute a foreign policy that not only resists American foreign policy and work outside of American leadership, but signifies its aspirations to hold a “great power” status.[2] France’s Operation Serval in Mali, Ivory Coast, Libya, and Syria are but some examples of this.
As the Assad regime started employing tough military measures to quash the revolution, members of the Syrian army defected and formed what became known as the Free Syrian Army (FSA). As the opposition started gaining momentum and were able to liberate parts of Syria, it was a golden opportunity for competing global powers – including chiefly America and France – to ensure that whatever the outcome of this conflict, it would render some political leverage to them.
At that time, in August 2011, the Syrian National Council (SNC) was formed in order to be the “political representative” of the revolution and a potential alternative to Assad.
France was involved in the creation of this body, and was the first, and the quickest, to recognise the opposition SNC as the “unique representative” of the Syrian people[3]. The SNC was led by Burhan Ghalyoun, an academic and a famous Syrian opposition figure who lived in exile in France.
In early 2012, it was also France that initiated the “Friends of Syria” international group, whose goal was to provide the Syrian opposition with political and military aid in its fight against the Assad regime. France attempted to exert influence over the conflict through this platform which was created outside the UN Security Council, as it could not do so through the UN Security Council, with Russia and China vetoing any French proposals.
As the National Syrian Council lost relevance, France was quick to ride the waves of the newly created Syrian National Coalition in November 2012 in order to maintain influence of the Syrian opposition figures who had switched to the newly formed body.
America deliberately maintained an ambiguous policy towards Assad publicly, but sought to prolong the conflict in the absence of a viable alternative. Although it criticised him openly, it did little to undermine his rule politically. America’s ambassador to Syria Robert Ford made it clear that toppling Assad “wasn’t our goal before and shouldn’t be now”.[4]
“The only policy tool we were willing to engage was more sanctions. And everybody knew that Assad wasn’t going to step down because we upped the sanctions,” Ford said. “That was understood.”[5]
The old American-French rivalry showed signs of intensification. It was clear that France was leading a strong European position that called for the removal of Assad[6].
Robert Ford notes the American diplomats wanted to buy a little time and were “trying to get the French to hold still”, but the pressure was increasing. As Hannah Alam notes[7]: “When the French government announced that then-Foreign Minister Alain Juppe would be visiting Washington that June to meet with his counterpart, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Ford worried that the occasion would be used to call for Assad’s ouster. He said he pressed upon his boss, Feltman, “to make sure she didn’t say that.””
In 2012 France gathered momentum for a military intervention in Syria and stated that it would move to seek a resolution under Chapter 7 of the UN charter – a move that was aimed at leading a possible military intervention.[8]
In August 2013 and as Assad launched a deadly chemical weapons attack in Damascus that killed more than 1,400 children, France grasped at the opportunity again and quickly mobilised its war planes while continuing to call for an immediate military intervention. An imminent attack seemed real and France had rallied the West behind it for a zero hour, to the extent that Russia had pulled out all its citizens from Syria. However, this declaration proved premature as international escalation of the crisis was averted by the American-Russian agreement on 14 September 2013[9], which pulled the rug from beneath France’s ambitious attempt.
From this, according to Selin Guler from the Wise Men Center for Strategic Studies, “it was proven by the Kerry-Lavrov agreement on the chemical weapons possessed by Syrian regime that Russia and USA would not leave the playground in the Middle-East to France”.[10]
As a result France became isolated after the US president Barack Obama refused to act despite the breach of what he had earlier declared as a “red line”, and the UK’s parliament voting against military action. As such, any chance of a quick response was scuttled, and the French felt betrayed.
According to Didier Billion, the Deputy Director of the International and Strategic Relations Institute, one of the key considerations that had an impact on Hollande’s intervention decision was “the ongoing debate between the Gaullists and the Atlanticists regarding French foreign policy decisions. The Atlanticists, who defend a French foreign policy close to the US axis, rather than seeking an independent foreign policy, were more influential on the Syrian file”[11].
France’s continuous demands for Assad’s removal caused France to suffer several setbacks and isolated it politically, as explained by the French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius[12].
Despite the tremendous time and efforts that France exerted through the Friends of Syria group and the initial Syrian National Council, France achieved nothing but dismay and an internal backlash that, according to a bulletin report by the Polish Institute of International Affairs,[13] “has accused French diplomats of being unrealistic and facilitating the marginalisation of the country in the international efforts to end the conflict, especially after the Russian-American meeting in June 2012 in Geneva and the announcement of further talks about the Geneva II conference, in which France did not take part.”
However and despite the setbacks, France continued to stand firm on the demand that Assad must go, whilst America, Britain, and Russia signalled that Assad could remain in a transitional government for a few months.
At certain times in the life of the Syrian revolution, France was well-placed to lead a European led military invasion of Syria. On the political side, Europe, and France in particular, had influence over the direction of the Syrian National Council led by Burhan Ghalyoun. At the same time, a number of rebel brigades on the ground were aligned to Europe’s objectives indirectly through ties with Gulf countries such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, and Kuwait.
However, such attempts by France were frustrated due to the reluctance shown by Britain, the disintegration of Europe as a potential force, and the strong push by America, being the main player in Syria, against any such military action, through its diplomacy and concurrently through the UN bodies.
In recent times, France’s influence over the conflict in Syria has waned, and with this its ability to target Assad or intervene militarily, in the absence of a comprehensive plan and a viable alternative. Politically, France’s influence in Syrian political opposition bodies has weakened while the scene on the armed (rebel) side looks increasingly dire not only for France, but for the rest of the international players as well, in particular America.
This situation forced the former French Prime Minister, Alain Juppe to state: “I think the moment has come for us to eat some humble pie and sit down at the negotiating table in Geneva with Bashar al-Assad. Maybe we will be able to save some face.”[14]
Given this reality, France still seeks to build a strong European front to challenge America for a share in the future of Syria. In this endeavour, France takes every chance to undermine and weaken Assad, so as to create enough void or instability that would force America to accept a French role in shaping the future of Syria.
Prior to previous endeavours to act outside of the international platform – as with the case of the formation of the Friends of Syria group – France today acts within the international platform so as to be part of the decision making process alongside America and Russia.
However this is proving difficult, as America seems to ignore France in developing the political solution for Syria. On 14/11/15 and as part of the Vienna Conference, both America and Russia agreed on an action plan that would lead to a “comprehensive political solution” in Syria, without engaging or involving any European state.[15]
America, knowing well that Russia had no roots in Syria nor any influence over any of the opposition bodies (whether political or military), allowed it to play a big role in (1) maintaining the Assad regime by means of military and logistical support so as to prevent its fall before a viable alternative is ready; and (2) sidelining Europe and developing a road map for the political process in Syria without Europe.
Nonetheless, France, being the strongest Western opponent to the idea that Assad should play a role in the Syrian transitional process, places America in an awkward position that jeopardises America’s morality and position on this issue given Assad’s horrendous recent humanitarian record.
More recently, in September 2015, France acted outside of the joint military alliance led by America and executed by Russia and its allies, as French warplanes conducted airstrikes in what seemed like a French imposition of its presence on the conflict.[16]
As such, it is a clear arm-wrestle between a stubborn France that wants to impose itself on the international arena and play an important role in the Middle East, and America, which will only allow states to work through it and under its umbrella.
America, like any western state, could viably seek to punish any state that challenges its hegemony and control of such events. Western states have done that in the past, do this today, and will continue to do it in the future if it means they maintain their position in the international arena.
Debate has already been sparked within France in the aftermath of the Paris attack with regards to whether France should maintain its hard line position that Assad must go, or whether it should fall within the broader American strategy in Syria. America is clearly seeking to leverage the Paris attack by attempting to shift the discussion around its policy and the need for France to align itself with the American objective of fighting ISIS and “terrorism” in Syria.
There has already been a lot of ambiguity over the detail surrounding the details of the Paris attack. The fiasco surrounding the alleged Syrian passports of one of the attackers is well known, with even the German Interior Minister, Thomas de Maiziere, suggesting that the passport may have been planted.[17]
The facts surrounding last week’s events in Paris will slowly but inevitably surface. This may take weeks or it may take years. Whether the attacks were the work of individuals, groups or states, one fact is already known: states like America and France have been, and continue to be, responsible for some of the worst crimes witnessed by mankind. This responsibility lies in the direct carrying out of such crimes, sponsoring others to carry out these crimes, or creating the conditions that generate these crimes – whichever of these scenarios in fact ends up being the correct one.
It is a fierce struggle over one of the most strategically important regions in the world. America seeks to implement a political solution in Syria that is sponsored by the UN, whereby there would be a managed transition to a newly elected government, eventually without Assad, but ensuring that “state institutions will remain intact”. France on the other hand would have to re-assess its options and level of involvement in this conflict, in light of the latest attacks in Paris.[18]
Whatever the scenario may be, it is innocent civilians – whether in Syria or France – that continue to pay a very heavy price for this international power struggle, a struggle that is deprived of any sense of humanity or morality.
Anas Alwahwah
[1] http://www.revolutionobserver.com/2012/12/secrets-of-the-us-syrian-relations.html
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/11/19/why-france-is-so-deeply-entangled-in-syria/
[3] http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/15/paris-attacks-hollande-syria-policy-france-assad
[4] http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/26/opinion/ford-isis-syria/
[5] http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/world/article31016274.html
[6] http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/world/article31016274.html
[7] http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/world/article31016274.html
[8] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/apr/26/syria-france-un-resolution-hama
[9] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10309286/The-US-Russia-agreement-on-Syrias-chemical-weapons-deal-in-full.html
[10] http://www.academia.edu/7190577/French_Foreign_Policy_in_the_Middle_East_The_Case_of_Syria
[11] http://www.academia.edu/7190577/French_Foreign_Policy_in_the_Middle_East_The_Case_of_Syria
[12] http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/15/paris-attacks-hollande-syria-policy-france-assad
[13] https://www.pism.pl/files/?id_plik=14805
[14] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/14/france-active-policy-syria-assad-isis-paris-attacks-air-strikes
[15] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/16/g20-barack-obama-and-vladimir-putin-agree-to-syrian-led-transition
[16] http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20150928/1027664805/france-airstrikes-syria.html
[17] link: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-17/syrian-passport-in-paris-may-be-planted-german-minister-says
[18] http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/ee7d5b24-8aa7-11e5-8be4-3506bf20cc2b.html#axzz3rbAqeQwc