Assad is sending all of the wrong messages to the Lebanese
President Bashar Assad”s comments on the security situation in the northern city of Tripoli have drawn a flood of harsh criticism from Lebanese officials, who have every right to be alarmed and outraged by what the Syrian leader said. Assad recently opened – or at least put on the appearance of opening – a new chapter in Syria”s relationship with Lebanon, a country that Damascus dominated militarily for nearly 30 years. But Assad”s words in the Syrian capital on Thursday were a throwback to a past that most Lebanese would prefer to forget.
Assad was correct in his observation that the situation in Tripoli constitutes a serious threat to Lebanon”s stability, and he would have been acting appropriately had he merely expressed his concern. But the Syrian president went too far when he told the entire world in front of his French, Qatar and Turkish guests that he had asked President Michel Sleiman to "urgently" send more Lebanese troops to the city. Surely, Sleiman has had enough experience as commander of the armed forces to know when extra boots need to be put on the ground. And even if Assad – whose former career as an opthamologist did not require him to don a military uniform – wanted to give his Lebanese counterpart some kind advice, he could have done so privately or through diplomatic channels, not in front of the international media.
Assad”s assessment that Lebanon is unstable was accurate, as was his conclusion that more attention needs to be paid to what is going on in and around Tripoli. But the primary reason that this country remains on the verge of completely unravelling is that the state is still too weak to keep things tied together. Yes, Lebanese leaders are to be blamed for this state of affairs, since they have habitually abdicated their responsibilities to outside parties over the years. But some of the blame must also be shared with the regime in Damascus, which for nearly three decades trained Lebanese politicians to be inert by imposing all decisions related to this country”s national interest. Because leaders in Damascus and Beirut have been partners in deconstructing the Lebanese state, what is needed now is a sign that Syria is not working at cross purposes with Sleiman in his mission to rebuild it.
There was a time not very long ago when it would have been a routine event for Assad or his predecessor to openly issue orders relating to Lebanese troop movements. That time has passed. If Assad is serious about turning the page on a chapter of history that is not looked fondly upon by a large number of Lebanese, he will need to be much more careful about sending all of the wrong messages.