There is an obvious difference between the news leaked by pro-Syrian media outlets in Lebanon, with regard to the nature of the current relationship between the Syrian leadership and Lebanon's Prime Minister Saad Hariri, and what is being put out by Hariri's circles and media sources on this relationship. For example, it is reported that there is a deliberate delay in the second visit to Damascus by Hariri, which was “promised to” him, in the hope that he would meet a number of conditions that were “set down for him” during the first visit. Meanwhile, there are hints by Hariri's circles, and a confirmation in his statements, the last of which came during his visit to Spain, that everything is fine, that contacts continue between Hariri and Syrian President Bashar Assad, and that the next visit is “soon.” Is there a misunderstanding, somewhere, of the messages that have been desired to be sent to the prime minister of the national unity government? Or, is it no more than a desire to make it safely through the current phase, which is being described as a “crisis phase,” in the hope that momentum will return, along with the welcome that characterized Hariri's first visit to Damascus four months ago? The Syrian leadership has made a very important step on the way to recovering its regional role, and with it its Lebanese role, when it managed to bring about a key change in the political rhetoric of the Lebanese group that opposes its policies, and sometimes its regime itself. Heading this group is the Future Movement, led by Saad Hariri. Damascus used this transformation for political benefit, to support the victory of its previous policies and stances. The Lebanese group, headed by Future and the 14 March coalition in general, wanted to portray the Syrian-Lebanese rapprochement as the building of equal relations between Lebanon and Syria, based on a respect for the sovereignty of the two countries, and non-intervention in the other's affairs. This difference in how to repair the foundations of the new relationship was bound to be reflected on the ongoing arrangements for the coming phase, which include the method of dealing with Hariri, since his first visit was considered a closing of the page of the past and an affirmation that both sides wanted a new beginning. One aspect of this difference is the talk about Syria's desire for Hariri to demonstrate his commitment to the rules in the new phase, not just through his stances or those of his movement, but through a re-evaluation of his other alliances, especially those involving Christian parties. This could cover former President Amin Gemayel or the head of the Lebanese Forces, Samir Geagea, or spiritual figures such as the Maronite patriarch, Nasrallah Sfeir. From this perspective, the relations between the Syrian leadership and the Lebanese prime minister are subject to the political stances by the group surrounding Hariri. These are positions that Hariri cannot rein in, even if he wanted to. Meanwhile, the foundations guiding this relationship are subject to criticisms to which the Lebanese-Syrian relationship was subjected in the past, more than five years ago, when the success of Lebanese leaders in the periodic political tests by Damascus was the basis that governed whether the countries' ties were good or bad. Certainly, the positive atmosphere that has prevailed over Saad Hariri's relations with the Syrian leadership recently reflected the improvement in the general climate of inter-regional relations, and particularly those between Syria and Saudi Arabia. It is also certain that this general climate continues to govern the current relations between Damascus and Beirut. However, it is also no doubt the case that the transition of Lebanese-Syrian relations to a hoped-for stage that is being trumpeted cannot succeed unless these relations are based on foundations of equality between the two countries concerned, with no need for any other political cover, whether regional or international. When this happens, there will be a smoother review of the treaties and agreements that were conducted in the previous period, because they guarantee the interests of both countries, irrespective of the political inclinations of the group in power in Lebanon.
