The visit of Syrian Foreign Minister Asaad Al-Shaibani to Beirut, at the head of an official delegation that included the ministers of justice and security and intelligence, was an important step in the course of Lebanese–Syrian relations. However, it did not go beyond a delicate balance between political symbolism and unclear strategic interests. The visit carried mixed messages: on one side, statements about respecting Lebanese sovereignty and a wish to “open a new page” between the two countries; and on the other, actions that raised questions about how serious this openness really is.
From the moment Al-Shaibani arrived at Beirut’s Rafic Hariri International Airport, it seemed that the Syrian protocol chose to be more of a show than a practical act. The accompanying security officials carried weapons beyond what Lebanese law allows, which led to a short confrontation with airport security and showed a clear gap between the official speech about respect for sovereignty and actions on the ground that suggest the opposite. These small incidents, even if they look minor, carry deeper meanings. They show that there is no full coordination between the new Syrian administration and the Lebanese reality, and they indicate how hard it is to move past the long history of direct Syrian influence over Lebanon.
Symbolic politics also appeared in other parts of the visit. Al-Shaibani did not ask for a meeting with Speaker of the Lebanese Parliament Nabih Berri, who represents the legislative authority and handles “Hezbollah’s” negotiations inside and outside Lebanon. This was not only a formal issue, but also a sign that Syria continues to differentiate between Lebanese groups, especially the Shiite side. It was a clear signal that the “new page” Damascus wants to open is not offered equally to everyone. This brought back the question of how serious the new Syrian government is about moving beyond its old policy of control over Lebanon and raised doubts about the real aims of this visit.
Read also: No State Under Two Powers: Lebanon’s Struggle Against Hezbollah’s Grip
In terms of key issues, the Syrian delegation had clear demands, especially the release of Syrian detainees in Lebanon. This is a very sensitive issue legally and politically. The direct demand to free hundreds of detainees forced Lebanon to balance between sovereignty and law and showed the limited ability of the Syrian side to understand Lebanon’s priorities. Lebanon refused to hand over some detainees accused of fighting the Lebanese army, while Syria said they could be tried or serve their sentences in Syria. This showed the continuing difference in how the two sides understand rights and sovereignty.
The economy and security were also part of the visit, with discussions about trade, restarting oil and gas pipelines, and controlling the borders. Here, an old problem came up again: Syria wants to keep control of key border points, while Lebanon insists on full sovereignty over its land, including areas where the army is now stationed after the 2014 Arsal border battle. These differences show that geography still shapes politics and security, even with all the talk about understanding and cooperation.
Al-Shaibani’s visit also showed the continuing psychological and political tension between Lebanese and Syrian memories. Lebanese President Joseph Aoun was once the commander of the Ninth Brigade, which fought “Jabhat al-Nusra” in the Arsal mountains, while Syrian President Ahmad Al-Sharaa led the same front from the other side. This puts the relationship between the two leaders in a situation of mixed feelings and complex politics. This background, along with the long history of the Syrian war and military and political interference, makes any attempt to open a “new page” very difficult. The collective memory and political history cannot easily be forgotten.
At the strategic level, Al-Shaibani’s visit can be read as a message to regional players. Saudi Arabia played the role of mediator and helped arrange the visit, as reported by the media, trying to show its ability to manage the Lebanese–Syrian relationship, make use of Iran’s weaker role, and limit “Hezbollah’s” influence in both countries. But this mediation also shows how weak the new Syrian administration still is, as it tries to find its place under many internal and regional limits.
The visit also showed Damascus’s attempt to take part in judicial matters, especially the issue of prisoners, in a way that looks more like an effort to confirm symbolic power before gaining real influence in Lebanon. The economic file, which could have been a real chance to strengthen cooperation, stayed at the level of promises and joint committees that achieved nothing. Projects such as pipelines and trade routes need real and long-term coordination, and maybe regional help to provide funding and continuity.
The meetings, press conferences, and symbolic gestures all looked more like formal protocol than real strategy. The heavy security presence, the clear demands about prisoners, and the choice to ignore the Speaker of Parliament all made the visit seem more like an effort to appear active in the media and politics, not a serious step toward healthy relations between two equal states.
The main question remains: can Damascus really move past its old habit of control over Lebanon and build a relationship based on mutual respect and shared interest? Or will every official visit continue to be a show of appearances and speeches, while the real issues – borders, security, economy, and shared history – stay unresolved?
As for Lebanon, it faces the same test it always has: to redraw its internal and external boundaries, to make clear and united proposals to the Syrian side, and to be careful not to mistake official appearances for real change. What may look like a “new page” in relations could, in fact, only be another attempt to reproduce the old style – just in a more polite and “respectable” way.
The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of +963 association.
