The official withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon on 26th April ended 29 years of military intervention which was triggered by the Lebanese civil war in 1976. That brutal and protracted conflict which pitted the French backed Maronite Christians against various Moslem factions ended with the Taif agreement in 1989. Taif sanctioned what was effectively a Syrian occupation, but did envisage the Syrian troops being pulled back to the Beka'a valley by 1992 with a loose timetable for total withdrawal thereafter. Lebanon was governed by a Syrian-backed puppet regime, whilst Syrian troops and the watchful eye of the ubiquitous intelligence service ensured no serious opposition to Damascus. The military occupation continued without any serious condemnation from that gang of imperialist robbers otherwise known as "the international community". Even Syria's arch enemy Israel, which itself occupied southern Lebanon from the 1980's until 2000, seemingly preferred the Syrian order to the uncertainty of a post-Syrian stage which could bolster the more militant Iranian-backed Hizbollah. So no-one outside of Lebanon much minded the occupation, at least not until last autumn.

In September 2004 the US, flushed with its defence of national sovereignty in Iraq, and Lebanon's old colonial master France, sponsored UN Security Council resolution 1559 calling for complete Syrian withdrawal. Despite this public show of co-operation, the US and France have their own competing imperialist designs on Lebanon, their only common interest being to get the Syrians out. For France, this presents an opportunity to regain the influence it lost when its main client, the Christian militia leader General Aoun was ousted in the 1980's. For the USA, resolution 1559 offered a legal basis to put pressure on Syria which has been under threat from America since the defeat of Saddam Hussein, as an alleged sponsor of Iraqi oppositionists and anti-Israeli groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

The assassination of Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri in February, whilst generally blamed on the Syrians was a gift to the Americans, precipitating a cycle of events which would bring about the realisation of resolution 1449 within a remarkably short period. Within days of the death of Hariri, his pro-Syrian successor Omar Karimi resigned in the wake of a series of anti-Syrian demonstrations, which are likely to have been orchestrated by pro-US elements. This allowed Bush to rack up the pressure on Syria to get out by in invoking the West's greatest propaganda vehicle: the lie of "democracy. " By the end of March, Bush demanded of Syria "You get your troops and your secret services out of Lebanon so that good democracy has a chance to flourish". Now we all know what "good democracy" is. The US have achieved this in Iraq, where voters at risk of death were dragooned into voting for US sponsored candidates whilst US soldiers massacred civilians, American corporations looted the country's resources and just for good measure, where child malnutrition and unemployment have more than doubled since the US "liberation". But just like Dr Goebbels, George Bush knows that now matter how big the lie, the more often it is repeated, the more people will believe it. On the other hand, any cursory examination reveals democracy as the smokescreen behind which the barbaric reality of US imperialism hides. So if "good democracy" can come to Lebanon, maybe it can also come to Syria and even Iran, although it is apparently not necessary in Saudi Arabia where the pro-US royal family ensures that all good democrats wind up in jail.

Now, behind the scenes, we assume that Bush said more to Syria than let's have democracy in Lebanon. More likely it was something like "get out of Lebanon or we level Damascus". Whatever was said, we can be sure that Syria was put under such intense pressure as to complete its withdrawal by the end of April.

So whither Lebanon? It must be remembered that it was the Syrian occupation that put an end to nearly 15 years of civil war between rival Christian and Moslem factions. These divisions still exist within Lebanese society and there is a risk that they could erupt into violent conflict again. This risk is heightened by the likelihood that the competing imperialist interests of the US and France will back different factions to further their own aims. A return to the dark days of the civil war is not something which can be ruled out.

All this shows the bankruptcy of "national liberation" within the epoch of imperialism. The only beneficiaries are the bourgeoisie of one pro-imperialist faction rather than another, and never the working class who serve only as cannon fodder. Against all "national liberation" and against all nationalism, the working class must raise its own slogan of internationalism against the world ruling class.