BEIRUT: In the coming days, the United Nations Security Council is expected to vote on a resolution that would condemn the Syrian government’s violence against civilians. Lebanon, which was instrumental in drafting such a resolution on Libya, is expected to vote against the bill, political analysts say.

Earlier this week, Foreign Minister Ali Shami, urged the UN’s Lebanon representative not to take any vote against Syria.

The decision might surprise many in the West who watched demonstrators in Beirut oust Syrian troops’ nearly 30 year presence in Lebanon 2005. And in March, Lebanon was instrumental in drafting a U.N. resolution condemning violence in Libya, also supported by the Arab League.

But for some in Lebanon, the planned no-vote comes as no shock.

“I approve of the resolution, but I’m not surprised. Everyone knows Lebanon is not a sovereign political entity. Everyone knows Lebanon is unique and it couldn’t live with the consequences of a U.N. vote [condemning Syria],” said AUB political science professor Hilal Khashan.

“I would be surprised if Lebanon voted in favor of the resolution,” he added.

He also sees the expected votes against the resolution as strategic rather than conscientious.

“China will veto the bill because they’re in the habit of preventing resolutions that endorse democracy,” he said. “Russia grudgingly abstained on Libya. But it’s determined to veto any resolution condemning Syria. And some Third World countries, like South Africa and India, will always veto a resolution put forth by Western countries.”

On Thursday Lebanese Forces Leader Samir Geagea, aligned with the March 14 coalition stated that Lebanon should at least abstain from voting on the resolution. On Wednesday Future Movement MP Mustafa Allouch urged Lebanon not to vote –either way – on a UN Security Council resolution on Syria.

But even an abstention by Lebanon might be considered b Syria interference in it domestic affairs.

The tacit agreement between Lebanon and Syria, wherein it is understood that Lebanon not interfere in Syria’s internal affairs, dates back to at least 1991, when the two countries signed the treaty of Brotherly Cooperation. Article 3 states that “The connection between the security of the two countries requires that Lebanon not become a threat to Syria's security and vice versa under any circumstances.”

And Article 5 states, “Each country supports the other in issues related to its security and national interests in accordance of the contents of this treaty. Therefore the governments of the two countries shall coordinate their Arab and international policies, cooperate to the fullest extent possible in Arab and international institutions and organizations and coordinate their stands on regional and international issues.”

France and the U.K., the European permanent members of the 15-member council – whose three other permanent members are the United States, Russia and China – took the lead in drafting the resolution, as was the case with the one imposed on Libya in March.

The five permanent members wield veto power, while 10 elected non-permanent members hold two-year terms. Lebanon, which joined the council in January 2010, will complete its term in December 2011.

The draft of the resolution condemns Syria for its crackdown on peaceful anti-government demonstrators, demands an immediate end to human rights abuses, and "calls on the Syrian authorities to immediately lift the siege of affected towns, it calls for steps to address the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people, which include reforms that will allow general political participation, inclusive dialogue and effective exercise of fundamental freedoms,” said Mark Lyall Grant, the U.K. ambassador to the United Nations.

Meanwhile, U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron urged countries to support the resolution, saying of those who sought a veto: "That should be on their conscience."

But in Lebanon’s policy with Syria has not historically been about conscience, but more about realpolitik, say analysts.

“In principle, Lebanon should stand by human rights, but technically Lebanon is unique, so in the Arab world it has its own commitments to human rights,” says Imad Salamey, associate professor of political science at Lebanese American University. “Lebanon should abide by universal principles regardless where they happen. But the principles are different than the realities.”

“If Lebanon’s not going to support the resolution, they should at least abstain,” he adds.

But Salamey does understand the predicament of Lebanon in light of the unprecedented unrest in Syria.

“This has never happened before in Syria,” he says. “There’s always been political division in Lebanon, but now there’s a new debate – between human rights and stability in Syria. And they’re talking about the importance of a democratic neighbor. More and more people are critical of what Syria is doing against its own population.”

Regardless of the symbolism of Lebanon’s stance on the resolution, Salamey doesn’t think it will make a difference to the protests in Syria – even if the U.N. Resolution fails, with the expected vetoes of China and Russia.

“No one can stop the unrest in Syria, not even the Security Council,” he says. “It’s an indigenous movement. It’s too late to stop it. No matter what, people will get their way in the end.”