Sleiman On The Lebanese-Syrian Relationship
Does the presumptive Lebanese president really believe that the solution with Syria is “mutual trust building”?
Mr. Michel Sleiman, the man who until further notice is our next president, said yesterday that the way to solve the Lebanese Syrian “problem” is by more “Mutual trust building” (Via today’s Albalad).
Mr. Sleiman could be pandering to the pro-Syrians, but is he serious?
Mr. future President, how can you build mutual trust with a regime that perceives any form of opening up as weakness? Why is the burden on us to start building this trust? Aren’t the Syrians supposed to start by opening an embassy in Beirut, making official the status of the Shebaa farms and helping us draw our mutual borders? Shouldn’t they finally make that paradigm shift and understand that Lebanon is a sovereign country?
What we need Mr. Sleiman is more leverage, not more pointless brotherly initiatives.
Do you like this post? Would you like to be always updated with new posts on this website? If so, please subscribe to this blog's RSS feed? (tell me more)Share This Post:
Print it: 
Email it: 
-->
Discussion
No comments for “Sleiman On The Lebanese-Syrian Relationship”
Post a comment
Hello, my name is Mustapha and I blog in The Beirut Spring about Lebanese society and politics. I started in February 2005 after the killing of P.M. Rafik Hariri.
Rss
Latest Posts
More From the Beirutspring network
Lebanese Bloggers
Middle Eastern Bloggers
Today In Lebanon (NOW)
Naharnet RSS Feed
Yalibnan RSS Feed
Latest Lebanese News
RSS Subscribers
Blog Featured In
Categories
Most Emailed
- Kudos To You Mr. President - 2 emails
- Lebanese Bloggers Not Happy With Kuntar Celebrations - 1 emails
- Having It Both Ways.. Literally - 1 emails
- The PR Battle Over Samir Kuntar - 1 emails
- Lebanese Women Will Love Minister Ibrahim Najjar - 1 emails
Absolutely agree with Mr. Sleiman.
Lebanon cannot afford other relationship with Syria, than trusty.
If Japan can live peacefully with America, and Israel with Germany, there’s no reason for Lebanon and Syria to keep their hostilities and grievances.
.
Tayeeeeeeeeeb …. 3tiya
I don’t agree, Amir. Relations between the countries you mention have nothing in common with the Syrian/Lebanon situation. You might want to take into consideration “Greater Syria” desires by those in Damascus. And most importantly, don’t put aside the lessons learned by the world from Neville Chamberlain’s dishonorable policy of appeasement that resulted in the Munich Agreement way back in 1938. Lebanon can indeed afford an “arms length” relationship with Syria because the alternative is really something something they cannot afford.
Mus, can you please expand on what you mean by “leverage”?
I see “military” leverage and “economic” leverage.
Military leverage is practically impossible for Lebanon to achieve.
Economic leverage can be achieved if we sign a pease deal with Israel and promote trade. Then, Syria may become envious of our economic strength. Until then, our economy will depend on Syria’s economy because of our geography.
Do you see other levers?
Thanks.
I agree with Mustapha on this one, and disagree with Amir’s comment.
If the Syrians want to build trust, the balls’ in their court. We’re not the ones assassinating them or refusing to recognize their independence. We’ve already done our part in the “trust building exercise”, namely by continuing to call them “brothers” and to preach good relations with Syria, even while they assassinate our leaders, block our elections, close border crossings, invade parts of our territory, refuse to recognize our sovereignty or give a formal recognition over the Shebaa matter.
Let me show a few trust-building measures from their side, then we can build on that.
But we all know that in Syrian parlance: “Building trust measures” really means “give in to every Syrian demand and get nothing in return”.
It’s how they’ve treated not only Lebanon, but the rest of the world as well (see the various attempts at “engaging” Syria).