Fourteen years ago, the last Syrian soldier withdrew from Lebanon marking an end to decades of hegemony over the country that still remains a contentious issue among political powers to this very day. Differences have arisen over how to remember the 29-year period, with some choosing to describe it as “guardianship” under international approval, while others insist on labeling it as occupation.
Syrian troops entered Lebanon in 1976 and withdrew in April 2005. Throughout this period, Syria seized control of all aspects of political life in its smaller neighbor, the repercussions of which persist to this day despite all the changes that have taken place in the region in 14 years.
Opponents of the Syrian regime believe that the withdrawal remains incomplete given that the situation in Lebanon now has become more precarious after control has been shifted from Damascus to Iran through Hezbollah and its allies. Regime supporters disagree and instead demand the establishment of a special ties with Damascus. Others admit that Lebanon is an open arena for all foreign alliances.
Lebanese deputy parliament Speaker Elie Ferzli said that much has been said about Lebanon’s ties with Syria and it remains a contentious issue in the country. He acknowledged that Lebanon is not an independent country, but an open arena for players in various conflicts, including Syria and Iran.
In speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat, he refused to refer to Syria’s presence in Lebanon as occupation, saying instead that it was “guardianship” through international agreement.
Former minister Abdulrahim Murad and AMAL movement MP Ali Khreis shared this view. Free Patriotic Movement MP Mario Aoun disagreed, labeling Syria’s former presence as occupation. He did however, share their demand for establishing special ties between Beirut and Damascus.
Murad and Khreis refused to discuss Syrian or Iranian meddling in Lebanon. Murad said that had Iran been involved or had Hezbollah been in control of governing Lebanon, then the situation in the country would be better than how it is now.
In contrast, former Justice Minister Ashraf Rifi said that 14 years after Syria’s withdrawal, the Lebanese state has yet to regain its full sovereignty.
“On this day, the Syrian regime army withdrew from Lebanon through the will of the people, who rose up at Martyrs’ Square. The mission will be complete once the state restores its complete sovereignty,” he declared.
This stance was echoed by political researcher Makram Rabbah, who said that the situation in Lebanon today was “more dangerous” than it was under Syrian presence because control has been shifted to Iran and its allies. He explained that Hezbollah has been “Lebanonized in a bad way through its involvement in Lebanese affairs.”
“This may pave the way for an even worse period in wake of the sanctions that are being imposed on Tehran and Hezbollah. At the moment, Lebanon is not a priority for international players,” he went on to say.
He added Hezbollah and its allies are in control of the state, the government and parliament, explaining that the party had room to maneuver by placing Foreign Minister Jebran Bassil as a front to implement its policies. This was achieved after President Michel Aoun gave the party Christian cover to carry out its agenda. This is evidenced in the way it deals with Lebanese affairs.
Ferzli acknowledged that political rivalries that are being played out in Lebanon, Syria and Iran included, have regional reach. This makes Lebanon an open ground for all forces. This was demonstrated during the long and arduous process to form a government last year.
“Let us be realistic, saying that independence is complete is far from the truth,” he told Asharq Al-Awsat. “But Lebanon regained a lot of its independence after Aoun was elected president” and it is headed on the right path through policies that are being adopted under his tenure, he added.
Moreover, MP Mario Aoun remarked that a “Syrian regime that is incapable of resolving its problem cannot meddle in Lebanon.”
“In order to interfere in Lebanon, it must have agents on the inside, which it does not,” he noted. Furthermore, he stated that even if Hezbollah enjoys “special ties with Iran, that does not mean that Tehran or the party are controlling the state.”
For his part, Ferzli noted: “There is no doubt that Hezbollah, similar to other Lebanese parties, is linked to Iran and cannot do anything to harm it. At the same time, this camp is being threatened and Israel’s occupation of some Lebanese land is still ongoing”
Murad echoed Ferzli’s stance, adding, however that Lebanon was wrong in adopting its policy of disassociation from regional conflicts, most notably the crisis in Syria, which is the country’s only window to the outside world. He therefore, called for coordination with Syria and restoring economic and trade ties with it, remarking that the situation in Lebanon during Syria’s presence was “much better” than it is now.
The normalization of ties between Lebanon and Syria has been met with rejection by Damascus’ opponents. Lebanese Forces media officer Charles Jabbour deemed such calls as an effort by the regime to regain what it lost after it no longer had authority within its country. It now has shifted its attention to Beirut where it reigned for 29 years, he charged.
Contrary to Murad, he voiced his commitment to the policy of disassociation, adding that Lebanon today was not under any hegemony.
He told Asharq Al-Awsat: “The problem in Iran is that it is supporting one camp without the other and at the expense of the authority of the state. It has not reached the level of controlling the state.”
