Troubled at Home, France’s Macron Remains a Key World Player

French President Emmanuel Macron attends a European Union leaders summit in Brussels, Belgium June 24, 2022. (Reuters)
French President Emmanuel Macron attends a European Union leaders summit in Brussels, Belgium June 24, 2022. (Reuters)
TT
20

Troubled at Home, France’s Macron Remains a Key World Player

French President Emmanuel Macron attends a European Union leaders summit in Brussels, Belgium June 24, 2022. (Reuters)
French President Emmanuel Macron attends a European Union leaders summit in Brussels, Belgium June 24, 2022. (Reuters)

Emmanuel Macron may be weakened at home after parliamentary elections forced him into political maneuvering, but on the international stage the French president has the resources to remain one of the most influential world leaders.

France’s foreign allies closely watched Sunday’s elections where Macron’s alliance won the most seats but lost its majority in the National Assembly, France’s most powerful house of parliament.

The outcome has made the 44-year-old centrist’s life significantly harder at home, rendering the implementation of his agenda - such as pension changes and tax cuts - more difficult. Yet it is not expected to derail his international agenda in the immediate future.

Since Russia invaded Ukraine on Feb. 24, Macron has been at the epicenter of international diplomacy and, despite a historic shift in French politics and growing polarization, experts say that’s not expected to change.

"There will be much more contrast between the pressure he might have at home compared to his freer rein abroad," said Laurie Dundon, a France-based senior associate fellow with the European Leadership Network.

Macron, who is in Brussels for a two-day European Council summit, will next week head to Germany for the G-7 meeting and, the week after that, to Spain for the NATO summit.

The French president holds substantial powers over foreign policy, European affairs and defense. He is also the commander-in-chief of the country’s armed forces.

France has provided significant financial and military aid to Ukraine since Russia’s invasion and sent its troops to bolster Europe’s defenses on its eastern flank. During the presidential campaign in spring, Macron’s popularity rose because of his leadership role in efforts to end the war: He championed ever tougher sanctions against Moscow while keeping an open line with Russian President Vladimir Putin and has been in near-constant contact with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Macron, who won a second term against far-right candidate Marine Le Pen in April, even traveled to Kyiv in the week between the two rounds of the vote earlier this month, along with other European leaders.

France’s support for Ukraine is widely popular at home according to opinion polls, and opposition leaders have carefully avoided criticizing it.

The platform of the leftist coalition led by Jean-Luc Mélenchon, which has become France’s main opposition force, is explicitly in favor of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. On the far right, Le Pen, who has long had ties to Russia, now says she supports a "free Ukraine" while expressing reservations over arms deliveries.

"Foreign policy is not a realm where either Le Pen or Mélenchon want to expend their energy when they have so many domestic issues to challenge Macron on," Dundon said.

"Neither one of them wants to get involved in the messiness of the diplomacy on Russia and Ukraine," she said.

First elected in 2017, the staunchly pro-European Macron has never hidden his ambition for a leadership role in global diplomacy. His reelection in April bolstered his standing as a senior player in Europe as it faces the war in Ukraine and its consequences for the continent and beyond.

France’s strong presidential powers are a legacy from Gen. Charles de Gaulle’s will to have a stable political system throughout the Fifth Republic he established in 1958, after the post-World War II period experienced successions of short-lived, inefficient governments.

The president represents the country abroad, meeting with foreign heads of states and governments. It’s the prime minister, appointed by the president, who is accountable to parliament.

The National Assembly has negligible power over the president’s foreign agenda although it keeps control of government spending.

"Parliament has not been asked to give its opinion on the dispatch of arms to Ukraine, nor on France’s external operations, notably in the Sahel, in the Middle East as part of the anti-ISIS coalition, or in Afghanistan," Nicolas Tenzer, Senior Fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis, wrote.

Parliament must, however, give its authorization for an extension of these operations after four months, he stressed.

The emboldened opposition, both on the left and on the right, could seek to use parliament’s power to force a debate. Every week, lawmakers are entitled to question government members - but not the president - including about foreign policy. It’s an opportunity to raise criticism on key issues.

But the debate in France is widely expected to remain focused on domestic policies.

In a sign that the president’s attention might be shifting at least temporarily to political realignment at home, Macron hardly mentioned his international agenda on Wednesday when he delivered his first speech since the parliamentary elections. He only briefly referred to the European meeting focusing on Ukraine.

"I will have only one compass: that we move forward for the common good," he told the French.



Sudan's Relentless War: A 70-Year Cycle of Conflict


Army chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan (left) and RSF leader Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti, pictured during their alliance to oust Omar al-Bashir in 2019 (AFP)
Army chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan (left) and RSF leader Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti, pictured during their alliance to oust Omar al-Bashir in 2019 (AFP)
TT
20

Sudan's Relentless War: A 70-Year Cycle of Conflict


Army chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan (left) and RSF leader Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti, pictured during their alliance to oust Omar al-Bashir in 2019 (AFP)
Army chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan (left) and RSF leader Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti, pictured during their alliance to oust Omar al-Bashir in 2019 (AFP)

While world conflicts dominate headlines, Sudan’s deepening catastrophe is unfolding largely out of sight; a brutal war that has killed tens of thousands, displaced millions, and flattened entire cities and regions.

More than a year into the conflict, some observers question whether the international community has grown weary of Sudan’s seemingly endless cycles of violence. The country has endured nearly seven decades of civil war, and what is happening now is not an exception, but the latest chapter in a bloody history of rebellion and collapse.

The first of Sudan’s modern wars began even before the country gained independence from Britain. In 1955, army officer Joseph Lagu led the southern “Anyanya” rebellion, named after a venomous snake, launching a guerrilla war that would last until 1972.

A peace agreement brokered by the World Council of Churches and Ethiopia’s late Emperor Haile Selassie ended that conflict with the signing of the Addis Ababa Accord.

But peace proved short-lived. In 1983, then-president Jaafar Nimeiry reignited tensions by announcing the imposition of Islamic Sharia law, known as the “September Laws.” The move prompted the rise of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM), led by John Garang, and a renewed southern insurgency that raged for more than two decades, outliving Nimeiry’s regime.

Under Omar al-Bashir, who seized power in a 1989 military coup, the war took on an Islamist tone. His government declared “jihad” and mobilized civilians in support of the fight, but failed to secure a decisive victory.

The conflict eventually gave way to the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement, better known as the Naivasha Agreement, which was brokered in Kenya and granted South Sudan the right to self-determination.

In 2011, more than 95% of South Sudanese voted to break away from Sudan, giving birth to the world’s newest country, the Republic of South Sudan. The secession marked the culmination of decades of war, which began with demands for a federal system and ended in full-scale conflict. The cost: over 2 million lives lost, and a once-unified nation split in two.

But even before South Sudan’s independence became reality, another brutal conflict had erupted in Sudan’s western Darfur region in 2003. Armed rebel groups from the region took up arms against the central government, accusing it of marginalization and neglect. What followed was a ferocious counterinsurgency campaign that drew global condemnation and triggered a major humanitarian crisis.

As violence escalated, the United Nations deployed one of its largest-ever peacekeeping missions, the African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur (UNAMID), in a bid to stem the bloodshed.

Despite multiple peace deals, including the Juba Agreement signed in October 2020 following the ousting of long-time Islamist ruler, Bashir, fighting never truly ceased.

The Darfur war alone left more than 300,000 people dead and millions displaced. The International Criminal Court charged Bashir and several top officials, including Ahmed Haroun and Abdel Raheem Muhammad Hussein, with war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Alongside the southern conflict, yet another war erupted in 2011, this time in the Nuba Mountains of South Kordofan and the Blue Nile region. The fighting was led by Abdelaziz al-Hilu, head of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement–North (SPLM–N), a group composed largely of northern fighters who had sided with the South during the earlier civil war under John Garang.

The conflict broke out following contested elections marred by allegations of fraud, and Khartoum’s refusal to implement key provisions of the 2005 Naivasha Agreement, particularly those related to “popular consultations” in the two regions. More than a decade later, war still grips both areas, with no lasting resolution in sight.

Then came April 15, 2023. A fresh war exploded, this time in the heart of the capital, Khartoum, pitting the Sudanese Armed Forces against the powerful paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF). Now entering its third year, the conflict shows no signs of abating.

According to international reports, the war has killed more than 150,000 people and displaced around 13 million, the largest internal displacement crisis on the planet. Over 3 million Sudanese have fled to neighboring countries.

Large swathes of the capital lie in ruins, and entire states have been devastated. With Khartoum no longer viable as a seat of power, the government and military leadership have relocated to the Red Sea city of Port Sudan.

Unlike previous wars, Sudan’s current conflict has no real audience. Global pressure on the warring factions has been minimal. Media coverage is sparse. And despite warnings from the United Nations describing the crisis as “the world’s worst humanitarian catastrophe,” Sudan's descent into chaos remains largely ignored by the international community.