Syrians Leave Lebanon, Retain Influence

Once upon a time, Lebanon was the playground of the Middle East. Then, stupidity broke out, manifested by sectarian violence and civil war. That brought the Israelis and Syrians into the country to "restore order." The Israelis left in 2000, and the Syrians left yesterday (it appears). There is no down side to this -- the fact that the Syrians have gone home is a good thing for everybody, including the kids in the Syrian army. However, to judge just how free Lebanon is, one must await the outcome of the elections scheduled for May 29. Pro-Syrian candidates should carry the day.

The catalyst for this withdrawal was the assassination of former Prime Minister and very rich guy, Rafik al-Hariri, a Lebanese patriot who wanted the Syrians out of his country. His death, following last September's Security Council Resolution 1559 that demanded the withdrawal of all foreign forces, sparked anti-Syrian (and pro-Syrian) protests. The Ba'athist regime of Bashar al-Assad (who traditionally hated the Ba'athists in Baghdad) decided that the Lebanese army was up to the job of protecting the state and could be trusted to do so.

The cheerleaders for the Bush foreign policy are pointing to this, as they did with the Libyan renunciation of weapons of mass destruction, as vindication of their approach. But the glass is half-full at best. Ignoring the damage done to American and British democracy by the deficient intelligence that caused the two nations to prematurely embark on a war, Lebanon is still subject to Syrian influence even if there are no more Syrian troops and intelligence officers (which is painfully hard to believe -- after all, there are CIA agents in the UK, Canada and Mexico).

Those old enough to remember the Cold War will also recall the term "Finlandization." This described the Finnish government's rather friendly policy toward Moscow, which smelled of treason to those on the extreme right (the same crowd that wanted Franco's fascist Spain in NATO). This policy merely recognized that Finland wasn't big enough to get away with antagonizing the USSR for long. Its cooperative stance preserved the rest of its independence in other areas. In much the same way, Lebanon will toe the Damascus line in order to keep itself free of more overt forms of control. Moreover, after 29 years of occupation, there are Lebanese with a vested interest in further cooperation with Syria.

There are two factors now that will determine the fate of Lebanon. The first is the voting on May 29. Pro-Syrian candidates will be able to campaign on all the good the Syrians did, and since they are gone, all the bad will be forgotten. The anti-Syrian parties are reduced to saying "we were right," which doesn't deal with the future. If the Lebanese choose a pro-Syrian government freely, it doesn't make the regime any less pro-Syrian (and it is far more effective to control a neighbor by using ballots than bullets) More important, though, is what becomes of Hezbollah, which has thousands of fighters, receives money from Syrian and Iran, and 12 seats in the out-going parliament. If the fighters decide not to allow the Lebanese army a monopoly of force, little will have changed since the civil war started in 1975. Two cheers, but not yet three.


© Copyright 2005 by The Kensington Review, J. Myhre, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent.
Produced using Fedora Linux.

Home