Events in Lebanon may yet confound both Washington and Tel Aviv, argues Hassan Nafaa* Optimists look at Lebanon and see dawn glowing in the distance while pessimists see nothing but a dark cloud descending on the entire region. The truth is somewhere in between. A recent speech by President Bashar Al- Assad raised as many hopes as it triggered fears. It was good to know that the Syrian leadership is aware of the difficulties of the situation in which it finds itself and is determined to act wisely. And yet we are not out of deep water. President Al-Assad wisely pulled Syrian troops first to Beqaa and then to the borders. This, though, will not bring the crisis to an end. Rather, the Syrian decision placed the ball in Lebanon's court and in doing so whetted the appetite of many -- both insiders and outsiders -- who seek to fill the power vacuum left in the wake of the Syrian withdrawal. Things are not always as they seem, certainly not in Lebanon. A tug of war is developing between two trends. One believes that it is in Lebanon's interest to support the resistance and forge closer ties with Syria as the two countries seek a just solution to the Middle East conflict. The other believes that it is in Lebanon's interest to distance itself from Syria and rehabilitate its ties with Western powers, particularly France and the US. The achievements of the Lebanese resistance bolstered the view of the first trend, at least for a while. But Syria's failure to comply fully with the Taif Accord, and irregularities committed by its security services in Lebanon, alienated the Lebanese national movement. The extension of Emile Lahoud's term in office left a sour taste in the mouth of Lebanese national leaders and Al-Hariri's assassination was the last straw. Following the assassination the anti-Syria camp went on the offensive and insisted that Lebanon must rid itself of "Syrian occupation". The pro-Syria camp, forced on the defensive, accused Syria's opponents of taking the side of the US and Israel and of acting as pawns in the bid to liquidate the resistance and settle Palestinians outside the homeland. The anti-Syria camp wants to take Lebanon back to the pre-17 May dispensation, Syria's friends claimed. Al-Hariri's assassination inflamed sentiments within the anti-Syria camp, and the latter began acting as if it represented the entire country. As the government of Omar Karami tended its resignation during a heated parliamentary session, crowds took to Shohada Square in Beirut, waving flags in a scene that might have been borrowed from the Ukraine, as if to suggest that a new dawn had come to Lebanon and that the spark from Beirut would light a democratic Arab uprising. The international media lapped it all up, forgetting the fact that the scenes in Shohada Square were the result of extraordinary circumstances and could not possibly provide a clue to the future. In the anti-Syria camp the demand was for a Syrian withdrawal. The Lebanese authorities and Syrian security services were blamed for Al-Hariri's murder. As emotions ran ever higher it became hard to differentiate between those who wanted Syrian-Lebanese relations to be moved on to a more healthy footing and those who were promoting foreign agendas. In the pro-Syria camp many spoke of a unity of both goals and destiny. Here it was hard to distinguish between those who really believe in Pan-Arabism and those who were seeking to use Syrian connections to close a commercial deal or win a parliamentary seat. Coherence was the first victim of these upheavals as claims were made that the anti-Syria camp was gaining the upper hand and on the verge of winning a historic victory for democracy in both Lebanon and the region. Those foreign powers seeking a foothold in Lebanon were elated. That elation, though, is likely to prove premature. The situation is so volatile that it will change again in a matter of weeks, perhaps even days. Karami's brave decision to resign and Al- Assad's wise withdrawal were helpful. But there is much that remains to be done in Lebanon. Policies have to be reformulated and alliances rebuilt in a serious, transparent and sober manner. We know that domestic, regional and international players want to see Lebanon capitulate to Israeli demands. Lebanese national forces must, in the face of these demands, rally the country behind the resistance, for it was the resistance that gave Lebanon victory and restored its dignity. The powers that produced Resolution 1559 are the same powers that want to liquidate Hizbullah and settle Lebanon's Palestinian community permanently in Lebanon. There is a need, therefore, for all of Lebanon's national forces to rally and challenge the US-Israeli agenda. Under the leadership of Hassan Nasrallah Hizbullah transcends faction and ideology, a fact that will help in foiling the conspiracy. With the US administration fully convinced that the only settlement possible in the region is one concluded on Israel's terms the withdrawal of Syrian troops will not alleviate the international pressure on Damascus. The settlement Israel seeks involves a ceremonial Palestinian state behind the separation wall and the settlement of Palestinian refugees elsewhere. Washington believes such a settlement will hold only after the Syrian and Iranian regimes are overthrown. The Americans have been pressuring Syria by stirring up trouble in Lebanon. They have been pressuring Iran by questioning its nuclear programme. Washington is likely to argue that Al-Assad's move falls short of implementing 1559, and will then attempt to use 1559 against Syria in the same way they used 1441 against Iraq. The Americans had also hoped that Syria would help disarm Hizbullah before pulling out of Lebanon. Now they will attempt to interfere in Lebanon's domestic affairs in every possible manner. We should expect attempts to manipulate the next Lebanese legislative elections with the goal of installing an anti-Syrian government that will attempt to dismantle Hizbullah. Syria, though, is not Iraq and Lebanon is a very different place to what it was in 1983. The Lebanese can build strong relations with Syria while maintaining their own sovereignty. Moreover, the Lebanese can ride out Resolution 1559, a resolution that smacks of sectarianism. A coalition of national forces, of those who embrace the ideals of resistance, could conceivably win a comfortable majority in the Lebanese parliament. If this were to happen the new Lebanese government would be in a position not only to move beyond 1559, but also transcend the Taif Accord. International forces -- and I include the UN Security Council, cannot dictate the kind of relations one state must have with its neighbour. If the Lebanese do stand by Syria, and the resistance, while maintaining their own sovereignty, then the optimists who see a new dawn will have been right, though it is not the dawn for which Washington hopes. For its part Syria needs to introduce much- needed domestic reforms. This will bolster the Syrian-Lebanese front and help the entire region. Democracy, if geared towards national . * The writer is professor of political science at Cairo University.
