Lebanon and Syria to discuss relations

Mayssa Zeidan, Foreign Correspondent

• Last Updated: November 13. 2009 12:55AM UAE / November 12. 2009 8:55PM GMT

Relations between Syria and Lebanon are warming. Above, a Syrian soldier heads home after Syria’s withdrawal from Lebanon in 2005. Joseph Barrak / AFP

BEIRUT // Lebanon’s president, Michel Suleiman, met his Syrian counterpart, Bashar Assad, in Damascus yesterday, just days after the formation of a unity government in Lebanon.

“They will discuss bilateral relations,” said Adeeb Abi Akl, a spokesman for Mr Suleiman. The visit is Mr Suleiman’s second trip to Syria since he was elected in May 2008.

Meanwhile, Saad Hariri, Lebanon’s Saudi- and western-backed prime minister, received a telegram from his Syrian counterpart, Mohammed Naji Otri, congratulating him on the formation of his cabinet. The telegram marked the first official message from Damascus to Mr Hariri.

The developments would have seemed unimaginable only a few years ago when Syria was the main power broker in Lebanon.

Damascus conducted the affairs of its smaller neighbour for nearly 30 years. But when the former premier Rafiq Hariri, the father of Saad who was close to the Saudi monarchy, was assassinated in 2005, a wave of protests was unleashed that eventually forced Syria to withdraw from the country, in what became known as the Cedar Revolution. The Syrian withdrawal was supposed to have taken place soon after the signing of the 1989 Taif agreement, which ended the 15-year civil war in Lebanon and stipulated that Syria withdraw from the country over a two-year period.

But for the following 15 years, Lebanese presidents were named by the then Syrian president, Hafez Assad, father of Bashar. The Lebanese constitution was amended three times to accommodate Assad’s wishes. Governments were formed only with the blessing of the head of Syria’s security apparatus in Lebanon and elections were directly managed by Syrian intelligence.

So sure was Assad of his power in Lebanon that in October 1995 he announced the three-year extension of a presidential term for Lebanon’s then president, Elias Hrawi, in an interview with Egyptian newspaper Al Ahram. Legislators and parliamentarians in Beirut had been debating the matter since the summer.

But that was then.

These days, Lebanon’s dealings with its larger neighbour are on a more even footing than they once were, though Syria retains many influential allies there. At the same time, Iran has stepped in to the vacuum Syria left, through its proxy, Hizbollah.

Rimon Malouf, a retired army general and consultant in strategic affairs at Middle East Studies, an independent research agency, said that while Syria was still able to influence events through its allies in Lebanon, it was no longer a major power broker in the country, certainly when compared with Iran and Hizbollah.

“Syria helped during its presence in Lebanon to create a beast [ Hizbollah], which it cannot control anymore,” Mr Malouf said.

A senior Lebanese security official, speaking on condition of anonymity as he is not authorised to talk to the media, said: “Since the Doha agreement [in May 2008, which ended an 18-month political crisis] it was clear that Iran is the most powerful player in Lebanon through Hizbollah’s arms, and Syria’s role has became secondary.”

In a sign of how much things have changed, the president, Bashar Assad, at a Syria-Saudi Arabia summit last month, assured President Suleiman that he would call on his allies in Lebanon to facilitate Mr Hariri’s efforts to form a new government.

Under pressure from Mr Assad, Nabih Berry, Lebanon’s parliament speaker and Syria’s closest ally, resorted to silence in the last four months of cabinet negotiations and threatened to arrange a protest until a new cabinet was formed.

Sleiman Franjieh, Syria’s trusted ally in the north, made a major concession by giving up on his demand for a seat in the cabinet.

However, according to Mr Malouf, the cabinet was formed only when Hassan Nasrallah, Hizbollah’s secretary general, met the opposition leader and informed him of the cabinet agreement.

Significantly, that was after Wiam Wahhab, a former minister who is known in Lebanon as “Syria’s spokesman”, had announced a number of dates to form the government over the past two months.

“The performance of Nabih Berry and Sleiman Franjieh proved to be irrelevant in the Lebanese political process when they strayed away from Hizbollah’s direct wishes,” a member of the March 14 alliance said on condition of anonymity.

Mr Malouf said that if Syria was still the main decisionmaker in forming Lebanon’s governments, Mr Hariri would have been able to form his cabinet immediately after the Syrian-Saudi summit last month when Mr Assad had pledged to support Mr Hariri’s efforts. Rather, cabinet formation had to wait for Hizbollah’s approval.

Echoing the views of other analysts, Mr Malouf said Hizbollah’s ignoring Mr Wahhab’s announcement of cabinet dates was possibly a sign of friction between Syria and Iran/Hizbollah and indicative of a wider dispute between them over such issues as the general situation in Lebanon, negotiations with Israel and the Iraq issue.

According to Mr Malouf, Syria’s leadership implicitly blames the Iranian regime of implicating Syria in the massive bombings on August 19 in Baghdad that killed more than 100 people and after which the Iraqi prime minister Nouri al Maliki accused Syria of harbouring senior members of the now-banned Baath Party along with al Qa’eda, which planned the attacks.

“Assad’s regime feels suffocated by Iran while it is trying to negotiate with the US and Israel and break its international isolation,” Mr Malouf said.

In any case, it is clear that Syria is no longer the main determinant in Lebanese affairs, while Iran and Hizbollah’s role has grown considerably.

At the same time, Syria and Hizbollah/Iran no longer seem to be singing from the same hymn sheet, something that could have significant consequences for Lebanon’s future.

mzeidan@thenational.ae