BEIRUT: At the end of the month Lebanon will take the mantle of the U.N. Security Council presidency, replacing India at the helm of the organization at what could be a crucial stage in the international community’s stance on Syria.

Lebanon’s precarious position on its restive neighbor could put it in an awkward position throughout the month, analysts told The Daily Star Tuesday.

Nadim Shehadi, associate fellow at London-based think tank Chatham House, said the need of Lebanon’s representatives in New York to balance the prerogatives of Arab states – whom Lebanon is representing at the Security Council – as well its own political priorities could prove troublesome.

“Lebanon, when it is president of the Security Council, acts as a representative of the Arab group, so it’s not really Lebanon that’s doing the policy,” he said.

Last week saw the strongest rebuttal yet of President Bashar Assad from the U.N., which penned a statement condemning ongoing crackdowns against almost five months of pro-democracy protests.

Lebanon, as a nonpermanent Security Council member for 2011, disassociated itself from the statement, a position which at the time reflected largely the silence from other Arab nations concerning Syria. But regional condemnation of Assad’s security approach has heightened over the weekend, leading to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Bahrain withdrawing their envoys from Damascus. In addition, the Arab League and GCC countries voiced concern over the killings of protesters across Syria.

According to Chafik Masri, International Law professor at the American University of Beirut, Lebanon’s forthcoming Security Council presidency must weigh up the pros and cons of representing Arab administrations increasingly hostile toward Assad on one hand, while maintaining friendly relations with a powerful Damascus on the other.

“The whole picture changed. When the statement was announced [last week] there was no such [anti-Syria] attitude and that’s why the Lebanese diplomacy was on the side of the Arab states,” Masri said. “Now there is no silence anymore, so with Lebanon representing itself and the Arab league, it is supposed to use the language used by the Arab League.

“It is supposed to take the same stance as the Arab League. It will be difficult. It’s very embarrassing for Lebanon,” he added.

Shehadi said that last week’s statement of condemnation came at a time when powerful developing nations, such as Brazil, China and India were against international intervention in Syria. Were that to change, he argued, Lebanon may be forced, through Arab League volition, to go along with the international community.

“Damascus knows that it has some friends in Beirut and some enemies. In the Arab League, Lebanon has done much more than it can,” he said.

Shehadi added that if the situation in Syria continued to deteriorate, Assad’s March 8 allies, which control the majority of Cabinet portfolios, could need to reassess their foreign policy goals.

“If you listen to [March 8 media outlets] they are putting forward the official Syrian government position – that what is happening is a conspiracy against the Syrian regime – because of its stance in support of the Resistance,” he said.

“When you push this to its conclusion, the logical end is that claiming everything in Syria is a conspiracy is not a tenable position in the long run, even for the pro-Syrian factions that are here. They can stretch it only as far as they think they can get away with it.”

Foreign Minister Adnan Mansour visited Damascus over the weekend and met with senior Syrian government officials, reiterating that Lebanon had no interest in interfering in the situation across the border.

Masri said that Lebanon’s stance toward Syria, separate from its Arab League commitment, was pragmatic.

“The attitude of Lebanon was along with limiting the damage, to keep things slightly going without any tension. But [last week’s] statement was not agreeable because it included many terms which diplomacy could have avoided,” he said.

He added that Lebanon’s U.N. mission last week was “legally imprecise” by waiting for the statement session to finish before announcing its disassociation from the Security Council stance.

Former Foreign Minister Fouad Turk said that even in the event that Lebanon presides over the Security Council when a potential resolution against Syria is discussed, it would still be able to maintain its detached position.

“They might vote to abstain. The president of the Security Council has to announce its declarations. At the same time, it can abstain,” he said.

Turk added that while the Arab League was unable to formulate a united position on Syria, Lebanon could continue to get away with keeping on its path of disassociation.

“I don’t see a united Arab position on this at the Security Council. The Arab League so far hasn’t taken a firm position and so it shouldn’t be difficult for Lebanon’s position there,” he said. “If before September the Arab League has come up with a unanimous position, then our representatives in the Security Council will have to change theirs.”

Lebanon’s successful negotiation of the Syrian issue during September could ultimately boil down to sensitive diplomacy, according to Shehadi.

“The [Security Council] presidency doesn’t mean you are president of the world. It’s more of a chairmanship,” he said. “[Lebanon’s position on Syria] is not such a big deal, given that the U.S. and Europeans are being indecisive.

“There is a lot of indecision in the region. Lebanon votes in coordination with the Arab League. If the Arab League is indecisive, Lebanon will probably abstain [from resolutions].”