The united Syrian opposition could be a source of power for Lebanon

The specter of Syrian hegemony still haunts official Lebanon. There is little indication it will disappear as long as the current "thugocracy " is in power. Meanwhile, several Syrian opposition figures and parties joined forces to form the National Salvation Front. The objective is to free Syrians from the thugs who rule it. This begs the question: should Lebanon recognize this opposition as a legitimate challenger to the current Syrian regime?

Bashar's nightmare scenario begins with a scene set in Beirut, with Syrian opposition figures discussing ways to oust him and his cronies. He has been working diligently over the past couple of years to consolidate his power in both countries and had gone as far as eliminating a potential supporter of the Syrian opposition, Rafik Hariri, who had strong connections with Abdel Halim Khaddam and Ghazi Kenaan. An unintended consequence of the Hariri assassination, however, was a strengthening of the Lebanese and Syrian opposition beginning with the Cedar revolution, the international pressure on the regime, the Hariri investigation and finally Khaddam's defection. Khaddam may not be the ideal candidate to be leading a coup, but given the current makeup of Syrian authorities, his connections in the Baath party and his success in waging an alliance with the Muslim Brothers, he has emerged as the most serious threat to the regime. The former vice president managed to extract from the MB a commitment to a modern and secular constitution. This move was designed to assuage international fears that Bashar's fall could give birth to an Islamist regime.

Several Lebanese politicians have already publicly (though less so lately) supported Khaddam in his outing against the regime. Saad Hariri started it and now Walid Jumblatt, who met him on his way to and back from Washington. Although Hariri and Jumblatt say they are not seeking regime change in Syria, it should have become apparent to them that Lebanon will never be stable and independent as long as the Assad family is in power.

Assad still vetoes a new president in Lebanon, and it is unlikely he will change his mind. Michel Aoun realized early on that his way to the presidency has to pass through Damascus. His alliance (or understanding) with Hizbullah is nothing more than an understanding with the Syrian regime designed to make him more attractive to Bashar. In fact, the entire National Dialogue could be read as an exercise in appeasing and comforting Damascus, with even the March 14 forces engaging in what ended up becoming a message of assurance to Bashar:  "Lebanon will not be a source of threats to Syria". The fact that the dialogue could not reach consensus on the more pressing issue, the presidency, without assuring Syria and its allies first, is a sad indication that Syrian hegemony over Lebanese decision making is still alive and kicking.

The participants of the dialogue are supposed to reconvene next week. By then, the "positive" message they sent to Syria, they hope, would lead to a Syrian change of heart and acceptance of a president chosen by the Lebanese.

But Lahoud shows no signs that he is willing to resign, meaning that Bashar is not giving him up yet. And the regime has not exactly changed its behaviour. Just yesterday, in fact, the Syrian foreign minister summoned his Lebanese counterpart Fawzi Salloukh to Damascus to "discuss the Arab Summit's agenda and matters related to Lebanese-Syrian relations." Salloukh, whom Jumblatt called "Syria's man in Lebanon", had to decline the invitation, which would have preempted a future visit by PM Siniora to discuss the same issues.

Siniora's Damascus trip was agreed upon during the dialogue, and will supposedly try to redress Lebanese-Syrian relations through establishing diplomatic ties and demarcating the borders. Moallem's invitation can only be interpreted as a sign that the regime continues to view Lebanon as a subordinate to Syria in the region and on the international scene.

Siniora reportedly thinks it is "too early" for his Syrian visit. My guess is that they are awaiting a Syrian green light regarding the presidency before proceeding. That may be the wrong bet. Even if Syria "allows" Lebanon to choose a president, we will be wrong to continue to live by the Syrian regime's rules.

For that one wonders whether it wouldn't be more beneficial in the long term to lend some support and recognition, even if behind the scenes, to the emerging Syrian opposition. I think decision making in Lebanon should start taking into consideration that the regime's days are numbered, and that there is a strong and viable alternative.

Syria's allies are strong in the country, and March 14 is weak, as admitted Jumblatt at Brookings. The response to Hizbullah's unashamed defense of Syrian interests should now be that real Syrian interests are no longer the sole property of that regime, as evidenced by the emergence of a strong and politically diverse Syrian opposition. Does Hizbullah want to take sides in the struggle for power in Damascus by supporting one party (that is under investigation by the UN) against another? This should be the line used against Hizbullah. Siniora's visit, then, should wait not until Bashar approves the choice of Lebanese leadership, but until the Syrian people decide on THEIR leadership.

For once, let Lebanon be in a position of power.

Comments

[EvilConCarne]

Excellent post! I still find it amusing how everyone thought that Jumblatt was sabotaging the dialogue when the agenda was already set before it started by Syria and its allies. Seems he is right again.

i dont think that khaddam whose ruled lebanon for the past 30 years can be a source of force for lebanon

on contrary , he s using lebanon to get back to power in syria and to secure its future power he ll have to get an influence back to lebanon

@ evil
the 14 of march is a passed day, call it history now