Syria's lost and last chance
The Lebanese Christian opposition views the Syria Accountability Act as a replay of earlier international and regional measures, but simply unacceptable in coming from the US, Ziyad Baroud* writes
As far as Lebanon is concerned, the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act is not the same as previous attempts to expel Syrian forces from the country. The failure to fully implement UN Resolution 520 of 1982 and the 1989 Taif Accord, both calling for the withdrawal of foreign troops, only set the stage for the new US threat against Syria.
In September 1982, Resolution 520 called on all "foreign forces", referring to Syrian and Israeli troops, to withdraw from Lebanon. The Taif Accord of November 1989 -- a Saudi-sponsored Arab League effort at substantive Lebanese constitutional reforms -- arranged for future negotiations on the withdrawal of Syrian troops two years after the endorsement of the accord in 1990.
The former was an internationally recognised measure, while the latter cemented what could be referred to later as a legitimate pan-Arab initiative.
Neither of these international and Arab efforts completely succeeded in "restoring" Lebanese sovereignty because they were not fully implemented, either voluntarily or by force. Syria used the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon to justify its own presence in the country, alleging the necessity of "strategic cooperation".
In September 2000, following the Israeli withdrawal after a prolonged guerrilla campaign spearheaded by Hizbullah, the Maronite Council of Bishops, headed by Patriarch Cardinal Nasrallah Butros Sfeir, called on Syria to abide by the Taif Accord stipulations.
Other prominent politicians also called for the accord's implementation, including Chouf MP and Druze leader Walid Jumblatt, and other MPs who spoke out in the Lebanese parliament. But that was before 11 September.
Indeed, much of the Lebanese Maronite community has called for the withdrawal of Syrian troops, but base their arguments on the country's interests, UN Resolution 520 and the Taif Accord. The Syria Accountability Act would not have received the small measure of support it now has if Syria had fulfilled its Taif Accord obligations. Doing so would have denied the US at least some of its incentive in pressuring Syria, and likely spared Lebanon, and themselves, from potential harm. Obviously, the bill primarily serves US interests in the region by pressuring the Syrian government into compliance with Washington's policies. By not implementing parts of the Taif Accord and Resolution 520, the international community, the Arab "sponsoring" states and the Syrian government are all guilty of handing the US a casus belli.
Because the Taif Accord was not fully implemented, former Lebanese Army Commander and Prime Minister General Michel Aoun did not have to substantiate his allegations that the accord failed to secure Lebanon's sovereignty when he appeared before a congressional committee to show support for the act. The act is ostensibly aimed at securing the country's sovereignty through the withdrawal of Syrian troops, and limiting interference from Damascus in Lebanese domestic issues.
For his part, Maronite Patriarch Cardinal Nasrallah Butros Sfeir, considered to be the Christian opposition's leading figure, has clearly stated that the Lebanese people oppose the Act. Sfeir, who holds that Syrian intervention in local affairs jeopardises the country's sovereignty,
was among the first leaders in post-war Lebanon to publicly demand that sections of the Taif Accord calling for the withdrawal of Syrian troops be implemented.
Other leading Maronite figures, acting under the umbrella of Sfeir, such as Jbeil MP Fares Souaid and Metn MP Nassib Lahoud, have publicly slammed the act and called for the full implementation of the Taif Accord to secure the withdrawal of Syrian forces and preserve the country's sovereignty by agreeing to a framework of future relations between Beirut and Damascus as two independent neighbouring states. The formal and definite rejection by prominent opposition leaders agrees with the Kornet Chehwan declaration in that sense.
There is a consensus among the main Christian opposition figures that the US bill would harm Lebanon as much as Syria. The act allows the US president to impose severe economic sanctions on Damascus, and as Syria is supposedly Lebanon's friendly neighbour, both countries' economies are closely tied together.
If the Christian opposition in Lebanon shares the same demands as the US, it has learned through bitter experience that foreign intervention is not the appropriate means. There is also agreement that Beirut should not be treated as a tool to exert pressure on its larger neighbour.
The Christian opposition has proved its pro-Arab stance by dismissing any foreign intervention against a neighbouring Arab state, but that position has yet to be recognised and supported by local authorities, the pro-Syria leadership in Beirut and, above all, the Syrian government.
* The writer is a lecturer at Saint Joseph University, Beirut.
