Beirut - The Prime Minister of Lebanon, Saad Hariri, has decided to place his relationship with Syria at the top of his list of priorities, even if it costs him the public opinion that accompanied him in the million man march and became known as the March 14 movement. He did this by saying this week that he had been hasty in accusing Syria of having assassinated his father, former Prime Minister Rafic Hariri, adding: “At a certain stage we made mistakes and accused Syria of assassinating the martyred premier. This was a political accusation”. These words surprised many and aroused anger in some circles, particularly those that reminisced about the entire phase of political assassinations in Lebanon and denounced the use of the expression “political accusation”. Some considered Hariri's words to clear Syria's name, and there are those who considered them to be at the same time an escalation against Hezbollah, which has been speaking of a “formal accusation” that will be issued by the Special Tribunal for Lebanon concerned with the assassination of Rafic Hariri, one accusing Hezbollah of being involved in the murder. It would be useful to carefully examine what Saad Hariri might have had in mind when he chose to send such a message. It would also be useful to examine the issue from a regional and international perspective, in order to identify potential repercussions. Perhaps Prime Minister Hariri, in making such a statement, which he decided to make in a calculated step, had in mind to set apart the “legal accusation” in order to help the tribunal regain its independence as well as to help the country regain its stability. Those well-informed of what Hariri is thinking say that he wanted to free the judicial from the political so that the Special Tribunal could move forward regardless of whom it clears and of whom it condemns. Perhaps Saad Hariri has cleared Syria in a political sense by speaking of the mistakes of “political accusation”, as he has previously spoken a language that clears Hezbollah, when he said that he does not believe that the party could be involved in his father's assassination. Yet the fact of the matter, regardless of Saad Hariri's convictions as a son or as a Prime Minister, is that clearing or condemning are powers held exclusively by the Special Tribunal, as the judiciary alone has the power to clear or to condemn suspects. And Saad Hariri was perfectly aware of this when he separated between political accusation and judicial accusation. The manner in which he expressed such a separation and the disengagement between political and judiciary was not just weak, but painful – because what he said did not make this aspect clear. This is why many have considered his words to be making light of the UN investigation, which pointed to Syria from the beginning in its numerous reports, and which hinted at Hezbollah under Serge Brammertz. Others considered them to be an insult to a national event in which hundreds of thousands took part – one that cannot be reduced to a “political accusation”, described as a mistake and apologized for. Saad Hariri may be forced to place public opinion and his popular base second, because giving priority to strong relations with Syria imposes evading his popular base and what it has represented in the past. He may have acted from a position of strength, being bold enough to apologize to Syria, responded to Hezbollah's constant escalation against him whatever he does, and decided to work exclusively as a Prime Minster, not as the son of a martyr or as party to the scattered March 14 Alliance. And he may have acted from a position of weakness, being forced to apologize and walk in steps that have been outlined for him. Clearly he has taken the decision to strengthen the infrastructure for a good relationship between himself, as a Prime Minister and as a statesman, and Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad. Indeed, he sees much benefit in a stable relationship between the two men, and perhaps believes this to be the key to stabilizing the relationship between the two countries. What Hariri is looking at is the regional map of improving relations, especially between Saudi Arabia and Syria. He can see that Egypt will join the new axis that is being established, and he as a statesman wants to be part of it. The Saudi-Syrian-Lebanese summit last month was for Hariri a qualitative leap, when King Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz accompanied Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad on a visit to Beirut to meet with the leaders of the Lebanese State, not with Secretary-General of Hezbollah Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah. In the past, President Bashar Al-Assad would receive Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah together with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Damascus. This was the case until quite recently. Today, on the other hand, Hariri considers that he has built the necessary infrastructure with Syria for the relationship between the two countries to be at the level of the two governments and the two states. This would represent an institutional relationship of a new kind, after diplomatic relations have been established between the two neighbor countries for the first time in their history. In other words, in the recent past, the Lebanese state was excluded from Syria's relationship with Lebanon, as such a relationship was channeled through Hezbollah and the armed Palestinian factions in Lebanon that have their headquarters in Damascus. Today, on the other Hand, Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah is no longer the sole figure of Syria's relationship with Lebanon. Perhaps behind this development lies a calculated message for each of Bashar Al-Assad and Saad Hariri. Indeed, Assad choosing Hariri may be part of a strategy to weaken Hezbollah, for ends which the Syrian leadership has in mind, as some Hezbollah members believe it to have purposely implicated the party in the UN investigation into the Hariri assassination in order save itself from being held to account in the Special Tribunal. Moreover, Hariri choosing Assad as a partner may in turn be part of standing up to Hezbollah, after the failure of all of Hariri's attempts to resolve differences, start a new chapter and reach an understanding – a situation which had become aggravated in terms of verbal confrontation after Saad Hariri's talk of a weapons-free Beirut. Hezbollah wants to keep its weapons and is thereby preventing the state from behaving as a state. It also repeatedly threatens to topple the government if it so wishes, being on the one hand part of the government politically and on the other independent from Lebanon “weapons-wise”, by virtue of keeping its weapons. Perhaps the flaw in Saad Hariri's reasoning, based on the fact that relations with Syria have now been channeled towards a relationship between the two states and the two governments, is the fact that the Syrian leadership is still sponsoring, funding and arming armed Palestinian factions in Lebanon, and is also the route for supplying advanced weapons to Hezbollah. Lebanon's Prime Minister may understand this contradiction, considering the fact that Syria faces threats from Israel and that the means it holds for defending itself and its sovereignty include those available to it in Lebanon. However, this does not negate the flaw in the formula of establishing a new relationship between the two states and the two governments, since one state is using a neighbor state as strategic depth to serve its own interests at the expense of the neighboring state's stability and interests. Most likely Saad Hariri has no illusions of Damascus being in the process of wasting important assets it holds in Lebanon or in the process of splitting away from Iran. Indeed, that is a strategic relationship, and Syria claims neither of the two. Damascus is working for its national interest and that is in its right. It may consider that its interest requires distributing roles and creating problems in Lebanon, so that it may hold the means of “resolving” them and position itself once again as allows it its stern influence in the little “sister” country – Lebanon. Damascus may truly have in mind to move the relationship to a new level. What is important is for the Lebanese state not to dispense with its role as a state, especially after the million man march has led to a fresh start for Lebanon towards positive relations with its neighbor Syria. Certainly the relationship between Lebanon and Syria should be special, because Syria is Lebanon's immediate Arab neighbor, and because the regional situation requires building on closing the chapter of Saudi-Syrian disagreement and starting a new phase. However, strengthening this relationship must take place through measures taken by both sides. Yes, Syria is stronger and bigger, and it has vast influence over the future of Lebanon in terms of stability or collapse. But Lebanon is still a main feature for rehabilitating Syria regionally and on the international scene. Squandering such assets before time would be unwise, especially if it leaves an impression of weakness or of necessity, and produces a different impression towards Hezbollah, one with a tone of escalation through the Syrian gateway. Hezbollah has besieged itself by itself by discussing the formal accusation against it before any formal accusations have been issued by the Special Tribunal. The relationship between Syria and Hezbollah seems a little tense or afflicted by mutual doubts. The way Hezbollah has recently dealt with developments leaves the impression that it is tense and making successive tactical mistakes. Iran is powerless. Yet in spite of all of this, and even if it is out of the question for Hezbollah to effectively escalate in a harmful way on the field, there is the impression that the Prime Minister is taking risks by playing the card of the relationship between Syria and Hezbollah. It cannot be doubted is that Saad Hariri means well for the relationship between Lebanon and Syria, wishes for permanent appeasement on the Lebanese scene, and most of all hopes for stability for his country amid positive regional relations. He is in a position he cannot be envied for, whether he is right or wrong. Indeed, he is putting himself to the test as a Prime Minister and pressing his wound as the one most concerned with the assassination of his father Rafic Hariri, as he enters the corridors of Arab and regional politics while under a local and international microscope.
