meepas analysis: Lebanon- After yesterday’s explosion, will there be calm or more violence?

meepas Analysis

Lebanon : After yesterday's explosion, will there be calm or more violence?

By: Meir Javedanfar

meepas.com

24/03/2005

Yesterday's explosion in the Christian heartland of Kaslik north of Beirut was the second of such explosions in Lebanon over the last week. Such acts of violence are of concern to many Lebanese and international observers as Lebanon has not seen this level of internal violence since the end of the Civil war in 1989.

Upon closer observation, the two explosions in Lebanon over the last week show two important commonalities;

• They have intensified after the recent demonstrations in Lebanon calling for the expulsion of Syrian forces.

• They have all targeted groups and individuals who are seen as being anti – Syrian.

This pattern leads us towards the hypothesis that Syria is attacking people who are asking for the removal of its troops from Lebanon . However in order to enable us to determine the viability of the hypothesis, this analysis by meepas first aims to look at Syria 's motives for wishing to stay in Lebanon .

Once the motives have been established the analysis will then answer the following two crucial questions:

1. How likely is it that Syria was behind the recent bombings?

And perhaps more important than that;

2. Will Lebanon see more violence?

Lebanon was part of Syria (in Arabic known as Billad al Shaam) until it was separated under the Sykes-Picot agreement by the colonial powers of Britain and France after the First World War. The Syrians, especially the Baathists (who are currently in power) were very bitter about the aforementioned accord and its consequences. According to a number of reports, many heads of state visiting Syria were subjected to long lectures by the late Syrian leader Hafez al Assad about the pitfalls of this accord, simply because many nationalist Syrians saw Lebanon as a historic part of Syria that was unfairly separated.

Upon invitation by the Christian Lebanese to intervene militarily in Lebanon 's Civil war in 1975, Syria went on take several advantages from its presence there. These included provision of jobs in Lebanon for legions of unemployed Syrians for whom the struggling Syrian economy could not provide jobs. Syria 's military presence in Lebanon and its clout over Hezbollah also allowed Syria to open a second proxy front against Israel . Syria used this front to punish Israel for its occupation of the Golan heights . Furthermore Syria 's ability to get the warring factions in Lebanon to agree to a ceasefire elevated Syria 's standing in the Arab world.

However another important reason which has motivated Syria to stay is the economic advantages enjoyed by the inner circles of Syria 's ruling elite from their business dealings in Lebanon . It is a known fact that Syria 's President buys the loyalty of those closest to him by providing them with a slice of the flourishing goods smuggling business which has been running from Lebanon 's ports for many years. Therefore it can be concluded that the loss of Syria 's control over Lebanon will not only mean a strategic loss but also an economic loss. More importantly the negative consequences of such a loss would reach those protecting the rule of Syria 's President. With rising unemployment, unpopularity and international isolation, Assad needs all the allies he can afford. Therefore Lebanon 's usefulness to Assad as means of securing his own position is considered one of the strongest reasons as to why he would be unwilling to relinquish his hold over Lebanon .

The aforementioned arguments can be considered as motive for Syria to want to stay in Lebanon . However how do they connect Syria to the recent bombings?

Since its entry into Lebanon in 1975, one of the factors which has enabled Syria to station as much as 30000 of its troops there has been internal instability and insecurity in Lebanon . Syria has used this factor to its advantage by claiming that it is the only force which can protect Lebanon from the eruption of Civil war and attacks by Israel . The Civil war ended in 1989 and Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 1999. Therefore a peaceful Lebanon does not provide Syria with the legitimisation it needs to maintain its forces there.

Consequently it is the opinion of meepas that the two recent bombs in Lebanon were the works of Syria in a bid to create instability and inter factional violence in Lebanon . Syria aimed to use the expected instability to justify the need for Syrian forces to stay in Lebanon on the pretext of enforcing a ceasefire, as it did in 1989.

Furthermore the fact that the loss of Syria's control over Lebanon could threaten the interests of Syria's ruling elite point to more upcoming violence in Lebanon . Simply because the two bombs so far have not created the instability and inter factional violence in Lebanon which the perpetrators hoped for.

It is the view of meepas that the most likely future scenario is one in which Syrian agents plant car/ parcel bombs in Shiite populated areas with the goal of causing Shiite deaths and casualties. This hypothesis is based on the observance that recent attacks have taken place in Christian areas which are mostly anti Syrian. Therefore attacks in pro Syrian Shiite areas are likely to fuel suspicion about a possible revenge attack by Christians. Such suspicion is then expected to increase the chances for revenge attacks by Shiites against Christians thus leading to a cycle of internal violence. According to Syrian calculations Syria can then step in to stop the fighting on the condition that its forces can stay in Lebanon to maintain the calm. What is interesting is that such a move by Syria is likely to receive Arab backing. This is because over the years many Arab countries (especially Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf states) have invested in economic projects in Lebanon . Therefore they have a vested interest in seeing a stable Lebanon, even if it means Syria has to stay.

The second most likely scenario foreseen by meepas is one in which more Syrian backed attacks take place against the anti Syrian Christian Lebanese population. So far, despite the two recent bombings the Christian Lebanese have not reacted in a violent manner. However another bomb by Syria may make it more difficult for the Christians not to react. Therefore in such a scenario revenge attacks will take place by the Christians against pro Syrian Lebanese factions which will then lead to a cycle of internal violence. As in the first scenario Syria will then be able to use the instability to its advantage by agreeing to step in to stop the fighting based on the understanding that it keeps its forces in Lebanon .

The third most likely which meepas believes Syria could be planning is one in which hostilities breakout between Israel and Hezbollah. This is based on the logic that by getting its Hezbollah allies to provoke a military response from Israel , Syria can then justify the presence of its military forces in Lebanon on the pretext of defending Lebanese sovereignty against external attacks. Again such a move would receive Arab backing as all Arab countries usually take a united stance when it comes to Arab confrontation against Israel . However it is the opinion of meepas that this scenario is more unlikely as an attack by Hezbollah against Israel at this stage would be seen as a clear provocation to serve Syria 's interests. This would be a costly move for Hezbollah in terms of domestic Lebanese politics, as it would clearly make the Shiite organization look like a Syrian puppet. This is an accusation which Hezbollah has always tried to avoid.

End of analysis