U.S. President Donald Trump’s insistence on annexing Greenland, which is a Danish territory, and his remarks during the visit of Denmark’s Foreign Minister and Greenland’s Foreign Minister to Washington that he intends to take control of the island, located in the Arctic with a population of 56,000, angered Europeans, especially Denmark, France, and Germany.

As an initial step to respond to this move, France announced that it had opened a consulate in Greenland, then sent several French soldiers. Other European countries did the same in solidarity with Denmark. Trump responded by imposing a 10 percent tariff on the products of eight European countries starting in February, to be raised to 25 percent in June if he is not allowed to purchase Greenland.

French President Emmanuel Macron described this move as an unacceptable decision. Ursula von der Leyen said that such customs tariffs would undermine relations within NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization) and expose them to the risk of entering a dangerous negative spiral.

There is no doubt that this tension between President Trump and the Europeans raises the question of its impact on President Macron’s diplomacy in Lebanon, especially regarding support for its reconstruction and the success of the conference to support the Lebanese Army on March 5 in Paris, where the U.S. administration is an active partner in supporting the Lebanese Army.

French diplomatic sources told Annahar that the conference to support the Lebanese Army will not be affected by this dispute, because Trump does not care much about Lebanon, and his ambassador in Lebanon is on the front line for this purpose. However, other French sources expect Trump to retaliate in one way or another against Macron and other Europeans. Still, these sources ruled out that Trump would sabotage the conference to support the Lebanese Army, because friendly Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt, and Jordan may explain to Trump the importance of supporting the Army.

These sources add that Trump will try to bother the Europeans in one way or another, but not with regard to Lebanon. French diplomatic sources confirmed to Annahar that there is a serious mobilization on the Saudi side for the conference to support the Army, which was evident in the recent meeting of the Quintet Group (a group currently coordinating on Lebanon: the United States, France, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Egypt). They noted that the French envoy Jean-Yves Le Drian may visit several countries to prepare for this conference, which will be at the level of foreign and defense ministers, and that many countries will be invited, not only donor countries but others as well.

Annahar has learned that France will assist the Lebanese Army in drafting a strategy to present at the conference, which will not only include a list of equipment and funding, but a strategy for disarmament across the entire country, because the issue of restricting weapons south of the Litani River has ended, and the difficult phase has begun for the whole country and its borders.

In general, there is no concern about any American obstruction of the conference to annoy Macron, who has taken it upon himself to assist Lebanon, its army, and its reconstruction, despite the deep dispute currently taking place between the American president and European leaders.

Criticism of Naim Qassem

Moreover, French diplomatic sources criticized the statements of Hezbollah’s Deputy Secretary-General Naim Qassem regarding the Lebanese Foreign Minister, saying they were ridiculous because he insists on saying things that show that "Hezbollah has understood nothing about the reality and what has happened."

As for the ceasefire mechanism, they say that with the non-return of Morgan Ortagus, there is ambiguity regarding the fate of the mechanism and whether civilian negotiations will take place outside it or within its framework. The American side is interested in Lebanese-Israeli negotiations taking place outside the mechanism. It appears there is ambiguity regarding the framework of negotiations since Ortagus’s departure.

Since the mechanism's establishment, Paris considers that its civilian component was for consultation on matters related to it, while the American side considered that civilians were negotiating other matters outside it, such as the economic zone. It appears that matters remain unclear regarding the civilian-level negotiation framework since Ortagus’s absence.