Source: Kataeb.org
Thursday 19 December 2024 12:33:14
The ousting of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and the fall of his regime would not only mark a turning point for Syria but also profoundly impact Lebanon. The relationship between the two nations was established under the slogan of "one people in two countries," enforced by power dynamics that heavily favored the Assad regime at Lebanon’s expense.
Since the era of Hafez al-Assad, this bond has been characterized by a shared trajectory and destiny that were far from balanced. The 1991 Treaty of Brotherhood, Cooperation, and Coordination was emblematic of this unequal relationship, portraying it as a mutual partnership while cementing Syria’s dominance over Lebanon.
Signed by Presidents Hafez al-Assad and Elias Hrawi in 1991, the treaty claimed that shared roots and unity would allow the two nations to achieve extensive cooperation, economic progress, and national security. It envisioned a relationship that would provide stability and prosperity for both countries while enabling them to tackle regional and international developments collectively.
Yet, these idealistic promises obscured the harsh realities of Syria's interference in Lebanon, which had begun in 1967. The treaty legitimized Syria’s overwhelming influence over Lebanon’s political, security, and economic systems. It was a clear contradiction to the treaty’s first article, which pledged mutual respect for sovereignty and independence. Between 1991 and 2010, this imbalance was entrenched through 41 additional agreements that solidified Syria's advantage.
The persistent inequality was not only a product of the treaty's text but also a reflection of the stark differences between the two countries’ economic structures. Syria's economy benefited from government subsidies and a focus on production sectors such as agriculture and industry. In contrast, Lebanon lacked similar support, leaving its markets vulnerable. Syrian goods, often backed by state subsidies, flooded Lebanese markets, with the regime exploiting Lebanon’s sovereignty to maintain its dominance.
Nassib Ghobril, head of research and economic studies at Byblos Bank, told al-Modon news platform that the trade relationship was chaotic and damaging to Lebanon’s agricultural sector. He highlighted issues such as the violation of agricultural trade calendars and rampant smuggling, which undermined Lebanon’s economy and directly contradicted the agreements in place.
For decades, objections to this unequal relationship were muted, largely due to the Assad regime’s tight security grip on Lebanon. While farmers, industrialists, and merchants quietly called for state support for local production and measures to combat smuggling, these demands were never directly aimed at the Syrian regime.
With the regime’s fall, however, calls for reevaluating the agreements have grown louder. Lebanese economic organizations began to demand fairer terms that align with Lebanon's national interests as they emphasized the importance of protecting local industries and addressing the economic imbalances that had long plagued the relationship.
Ghobril supports reassessing these agreements, particularly long-term ones, as a necessary process. He also stressed that Syria should evaluate these agreements’ outcomes, given its post-war challenges, including rampant corruption, a weakened economy, and the task of rebuilding its industries and institutions.
Revisiting these agreements does not mean dismantling them entirely. According to Ghobril, Lebanon must evaluate its economic gains and losses from the past relationship, identify areas for improvement, and amend agreements where necessary. This process is particularly critical as Lebanon faces a transitional period, including the election of a president, the formation of a new government, and the rebuilding of its financial and trade systems.
Jacques Hakim, head of the trade committee at the Beirut and Mount Lebanon Chamber of Commerce, emphasized the resilience of Lebanese producers, who have endured war, financial collapse, and systemic crises. He noted that these sectors, which have survived against all odds, could thrive in more stable conditions.
As the region moves toward stability, Hakim believes Lebanon must maintain ties with Syria, as it serves as Lebanon’s primary gateway to the Arab world. However, these ties must be redefined to reflect the changes in both countries and ensure a balanced, mutually beneficial relationship.