Created in 1991 to oversee the implementation of the treaties between Syria and Lebanon, the continued existence of the Syrian-Lebanese Higher Council (SLHC), together with a host of so-called brotherly accords, has come to symbolize the enduring imbalance in the Lebanese-Syrian dynamic. Three years after the last Syrian soldier left Lebanon, and amid apparently genuine moves to establish regular diplomatic ties, what, if any, future is there for one of Syria’s most controversial creations?
Since its inception, the SLHC approved several bilateral agreements in economic and financial areas during the period of the Syrian presence in Lebanon, and implemented the controversial 1991 Fraternity, Cooperation and Coordination Treaty (FCCT), under Article 6 of which the SLHC was formed. The FCCT formalized Syria’s role as powerbroker in Lebanon, and the SLHC’s General Secretariat acted as a virtual embassy in Beirut.
The FCCT, which is still “active,” is composed of six articles that emphasize the Lebanese government’s role in protecting Syrian security. Article 2 allows the Syrian government to carry out any military or security operation in Lebanon to preserve its security without having to ask for the Lebanese government’s permission.
The other major treaties – there are dozens of minor accords – and agreements signed in the 1990s were also clearly designed to benefit Syria’s security and economic interests in Lebanon. According to a report released by the SLHC itself, trade between Lebanon and Syria grew by 28% during the first six months of 2001. Syria’s exports to Lebanon that year totaled $159 million, while Lebanese exports to Syria amounted to a paltry $16 million.
Elsewhere, the 1994 Assi River Water Agreement saw Lebanon “agree” to rights to a measly 80 million square meters of water, out of 400 million square meters, from the strategic Assi River, while the 1991 Defense and Security Agreement highlights the importance of Syrian security in all its articles, stressing that “both states shall prevent any activity, act or organization in all military, security, political and media fields that may cause prejudice to the other country, and shall endeavor to abrogate the laws and regulations that do not conform to this treaty.”
Not anymore
So what now? Syria may have left, but its agreements and accords still languish in the statute books. As for the SLHC, it hasn’t met since Syria ran Lebanon from Brigadier General Ruston Ghazali’s headquarters in Aanjar. Today, with talks about establishing diplomatic relations between Syria and Lebanon as part of a new era of brotherly relations, the nature, function and future of the council is very much in the balance.
Damascus is keenly aware of this. In mid-July, a high-ranking Syrian official told Al-Hayat daily that the main obstacle facing diplomatic relations between Syria and Lebanon would be the fate of the FCCT, implying that abolishing the various accords and agreements was not an option. “We want to discuss with the Lebanese their vision of the role of the council, the secretariat and the fate of the signed agreements” he said.
Nasri Khoury, secretary general of the Syrian-Lebanese Higher Council, was unavailable for comment when contacted by NOW Lebanon. However, in a statement to An-Nahar daily on Tuesday, he said that “any trial to cancel out the previous phase of Syrian-Lebanese relations is only a trial to cancel a reality marked by history, geography and martyrs’ blood… The FCCT and the agreements it produced are established truths,” he said, adding that the council’s persistence does not contradict the establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries.
However, speaking to NOW Lebanon, lawyer and constitutional expert Marwan Sakr said that there are serious legal questions concerning the continued legitimacy of the council and the treaties signed during Syrian hegemony. “How can we consider a treaty legitimate if it’s signed by an occupied country and its occupier? These treaties do not abide by the conditions of international agreements, especially since Lebanon signed them under Syrian pressure,” he added.
According to Sakr, Lebanon today has a different status. Any relationship with Syria should be based on equality and mutual respect. Hence, the council and all the treaties should be revised or even abolished. “I do not believe we need these treaties anymore, especially if we are heading to normalization. An embassy and correct diplomatic relations can replace the council, then bilateral agreements can be discussed, under the umbrella of international law,” he said.
MP Boutros Harb agreed. “The council was a tool for the Syrian regime to impose its interests on the Lebanese state,” he said to NOW Lebanon.
The Syrian-Lebanese Higher Council is a symbol of the era of Syrian hegemony over Lebanon, as it gave legal and institutional cover for the Syrian control and domination of Lebanon, while maintaining the fragile facade of a Lebanese state. Dissolving the council should not necessarily mean enmity or hostility between Syria and Lebanon. However, annulling the council would require a vote of parliament after a draft proposal is submitted by the government or a group of MPs. Getting it passed would be another matter altogether, not to mention an interesting test of where Lebanese loyalties lie.