The Aoun-Assad meeting and Franco-German history
A few days ago, General Aoun likened his visit to Damascus and his meeting with President Al-Assad to [former French] President Charles de Gaulle’s historical trip to Germany in 1962 during which he met with German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer.
Unfortunately, I would have hoped for somebody else to explain to the FPM leader that this comparison is totally erroneous. Points common to both meetings are, indeed, limited. The first such point pertains to the countries: Germany and France share a common border, as is the case with Syria and Lebanon, and France had been under German occupation. The second one is about the individuals: De Gaulle and Aoun were both career generals and have also experienced exile. Yet the comparison stops here. Still, the history of Franco-German relations mentions another meeting bearing strange similarities to General Aoun’s forthcoming visit to Damascus, namely Pierre Laval’s meeting with Adolf Hitler on October 22, 1940.
This similarity will be demonstrated below …
When De Gaulle met with Adenauer, he was president and spoke in France’s and the French people’s name. In comparison, when he met with Hitler, Pierre Laval was merely a member of parliament and, by a strange coincidence, the vice-president of the Council of Ministers. General Aoun is a MP and the leader of a parliamentary bloc who rants and storms more often than he talks.
When De Gaulle visited Germany in 1962, it was a country where the Nazi regime had long been defeated and eliminated and where the German people was resolutely walking down the path of democracy. On this occasion, De Gaulle met with Adenauer, one of the greatest symbols of democracy and of the European Union’s construction. Germany no longer represented a threat to France, nor did it intervene in its internal affairs. In contrast, Laval had met with Hitler back when France had been entirely at the mercy of Germany. General Aoun is [nowadays] going to Syria in order to meet with the same Baathist regime that intervened [in Lebanon] throughout the civil war, sponsored the rampant post-war corruption and continues to interfere in the country’s internal affairs.
The Germany and France of 1962 both had smoothly running political systems, and their democratically elected representatives were endowed with genuine popular representation. Nevertheless, this is not the case in 2008 between Lebanon and Syria, as the Damascus regime has been ruling for almost four decades thanks to a violent dictatorship. The Germany De Gaulle visited did not arbitrarily detain French or even German political prisoners, nor did it have recourse to torture and any other acts of violence to extort confessions. It did not interfere in France’s domestic affairs, did not dream to occupy it again and acknowledged France’s borders and sovereignty. This is not the case with Baathist Syria, which was driven out of Lebanon only thanks to the Cedar Revolution and international pressure, and which sows internal feud in order to dominate Lebanon and the Lebanese people and undermine the country’s stability by all means.
The meeting between De Gaulle and Adenauer was one among equals with the aim of building a better future for both countries and Europe. Laval, in contrast, had met with Hitler in order to discuss and promote future collaboration between France and Hitler’s Germany, and to reinforce Laval’s power in order to carry out this collaboration. General Aoun is to discuss with President Al-Assad the future of his own collaboration with Syria, the strategy to be adopted and the means to defeat pro-sovereignty political parties, which will confront Syria’s policy in Lebanon in the forthcoming parliamentary elections.
De Gaulle was a unifying figure in France whereas Laval symbolized division and collaboration with the Nazis, having publicly defended the latter’s policy and handed over to the Germans French nationals who were deported or executed. Ever since he became one of the executors of the Syrian regime’s policy, General Aoun has also become one of the regime’s staunchest public defenders, thus recanting his slogans of the past fifteen years, and his speeches sow hatred and dissention among the Lebanese and within the Christian community. The Lebanese detainees in Syria, which were once part of his rhetoric, have now turned into an embarrassment for him or, at the very least, an additional barter chip to brandish within the framework of the forthcoming electoral deadlock.
De Gaulle never recanted his policy of defending France’s interests and positions whereas Pierre Laval was an ambitious, opportunistic politician who changed sides several times so as to suit his ambitions: Having started out as a socialist in 1905, he turned a pacifist during WWI and slipped towards the right wing in order to reach power. This did not prevent him from meeting with Stalin and signing with him the Franco-Soviet Treaty of Mutual Assistance, before ending up with the collaborationist far-right. Likewise, Michel makes a statement and its exact opposite, and has no qualms about switching sides without heed to the consequences this entails for the country, its inhabitants or those who fought for him. The only thing that matters for him is his personal objectives, which are to be attained at all costs.
De Gaulle was an austere man with little regard for money and with a personal fortune that always remained modest, as he never accepted any money neither for him nor for his family. In contrast, Pierre Laval, a politician of modest origins, found himself in possession of an important fortune and a communication empire comprising newspapers, printing presses and radio stations (there was no television at the time). Similarly, after two years spent at the helm of the interim government, Michel Aoun amassed huge sums, which are incompatible with his position. Everyone remembers the revelations of [French satiric newspaper] Le Canard Enchaîné, which were documented with account statements and the confirmation of the figure in question.
In short, De Gaulle acted as a visionary decision-maker with a truly national endowment and, seeking a partnership between two states, went to Bonn in order to meet with Adenauer, who – in turn – symbolized a democratic Germany undergoing a reconstruction phase following the totalitarian fascist tidal wave. In contrast, Aoun is nowadays acting based on his own personal interest by visiting Damascus as an executive agent and a vassal in order to meet with the president of a country still under the yoke of dictatorship.
This article is by no means aimed at criticizing anyone; rather, it is addressed to Lebanon’s new generations in order to preserve the memory of two of the most remarkable 20th century European statesmen, and cut short to undue and absolutely unflattering comparisons for the two men and their peoples.
Carlos Eddé, l’Orient Le Jour.