1757

And for those who have been following news in Lebanon, I do not mean the year "1757". I'm talking about the U.N. Security Council resolution 1757, which was passed yesterday, and calls for an International Tribunal to investigate the matter, question the suspects, and try to get something out of this mess. This infuriated Syria's government, which claimed that the tribunal will ruin Lebanon and bring further instability. To many people, including myself, that sounded more like a threat than a warning.

However, there is plenty of room for speculation on who the assassin is. Rafik el-Hariri's murder is now a 2-year-old matter (1). Considering the small geographic size of Lebanon and the many divisions and agendas running aloof in the nation, it is surprising that this matter has not been solved yet. According to Al Jazeera,

For the first time perhaps, an individual government, in this case the Lebanese government, will be forced to co-operate with a UN-backed court.

Opinion is divided in Lebanon too. The country’s president is against. The country’s prime minister is for. The opposition, official and unofficial is against. And yet the demonstrations marking Hariri’s murder two years ago were so massive, that the Syrian army, seen by some as occupiers, others as protectors, withdrew from much of the country.

Throughout the long process of the Hariri Inquiry, presided over by a UN-backed team, countries and people not connected to the investigation have been pointing towards Syrian complicity in the attack on Hariri's motorcade, although this remains unproved.

But for those who do believe that there was Syrian involvement, an international tribunal is seen as a device that may help make their cause. However, it remains the case that the forensic investigation of the murder site, where the massive car bomb exploded, have not yet led to any suspects being named.

There is one thing that many people find shared in all unfair trials all over the world: declaring guilty a certain party just for the sake that "they don't like them", and Syria's government is in the hotseat. Personally, I have no love for the Syrian government: they are a corrupt bunch of incompetent politicians and have been responsible for the deaths of many Syrian citizens, particularly in towns and areas like Hama and Al-Hems, which have seen horrible atrocities. However, does it mean that the Syrian government, no matter how shadowy they have been in Lebanese politics, are implicated towards the murder? If Syria is indeed responsible for the death of Hariri and those other politicians and journalists who have been targeted by car bombs, does that suddenly mean, following a similar logic, that the U.S./U.K. Coalition in Iraq is blowing up Iraqi civilians in marketplaces, kidnapping journalists and beheading politicians? This only makes the situation more cloudy.

However, this tribunal is purely a matter of outside "interference": it does not involve the Lebanese government running any of the court proceedings, etc. In fact, they will be questioned and/or be forced to cooperate in the proceedings. Surely, this will hopefully bait the snake(s) responsible for Hariri's death, and to be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if it was from the Lebanese government, for it would all be in the advantage of those in power. But there's one problem: Hariri resigned from the PM office before his death, so it probably would not be in the interest of those in power.

There was something else that bugged me. Many Lebanese and Syrian politicians alike said that there would be trouble if the tribunal was allowed to run. There wasn't any trouble over the tribunal of the Rwandan Genocide criminals, nor was there any... probably minimal... for the tribunal of Yugoslav war criminals like Slobodan Milosevic (and then again there was that tidbit about him kicking the bucket before his sentence could be carried out to him). It almost sounds more like a threat than a warning from the Syrian government, but I hate to say that he might have a point. If the tribunal were to present circumstantial and critical evidence, people might start pointing fingers and find reason to fight. Let's just hope not, and yet I say this considering the extremely sectarian divisions in the nation, the proximity it has to Israel's and Syria's political machinations and manipulations (2). At the moment, Lebanon is indeed failing in unity, but this tribunal might serve to stoke further divisions, unless the criminal is someone who just does not belong to the nation to begin with.

What makes this tribunal resolution unique is that it binds to Chapter 7 of the U.N. charter (3), which was implemented in historical events such as the Nuremberg Trials, the occupation of Palestine (but resolutions were vetoed by the U.S., of course), the Iran-Iraq war, and other such events (4). Chapter 7 sends chills down the spines of the politicians of the targeted nation. Why is that? Just take a look at the following articles of this Chapter:

Article 41

The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Article 42

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

Article 43

1. All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.

2. Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided.

3. The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.

Article 42 boldly states the intent of Chapter 7: the use of brute force, if necessary, to keep the peace. That means aggression against those who go against the charter and against those who would destabilize the peace and security of the region.

It is apparent, then, that the tribunal, regarding the remarks of some (smug) politicians and representatives who were present at the Security Council Hearing for Resolution 1757, that there are some ups and downs to the resolution (5). One advantage is that the perpetrators will be brought to justice. Another is that the tribunal might "deter future assassinations", according to Zalmay Khalilzad (I can't believe I'm quoting this snake). However, the tribunal, as has been suggested, could spark internal strife, and, as has been suggested by those who abstained themselves from voting (okay, I know "abstained" sounds suggestive, but I couldn't think of another word), violate international law and, most of all, Lebanese sovereignity. However, I disregard the words of Bashar Ja'afari, the Syrian U.N. ambassador, when he said that the tribunal is against the "interests of the Lebanese people". This quotation is indicative of the Syrian government's nanny-like attitude towards the Lebanese people, but it also sounded like he just reverberated the "threat" Bashar Assad said about the tribunal causing trouble.

To be honest, friends, I have no exact opinion on this matter. It has several advantages and disadvantages, but it just sounds more or less another attempt to denigrate an Arab nation that has already decimated itself politically and economically. I am absolutely not convinced by Lebanese nationalism and how it might bring a positive attitude to all this mess: Lebanese nationalism has led to anti-(insert non-Lebanese entity living in Lebanon) racism and discrimination, along with encouragement for unaccountable and incompetent politics to run rampant in the country. I am further disgusted at how Lebanese politicians exploit this, along with the tribunal, to further boost their own agendas. Absolutely despicable: it's no surprise that every politician in Lebanon has his/her own agenda, as all have invested their interests alongside the governments of the U.S. and, for some of the parties, Israel. If anything, and to prove the honesty of the tribunal, all politicians that have had dealings with Hariri or agendas for/against him should be brought to the stand... yes, even American, Syrian, Lebanese, Palestinian and even Israeli politicians, not that I'm pointing the finger at anyone specific. Only then would the tribunal not be seriously violating the sovereignity of Lebanon or breaking international law.

There's no stopping it now: it has been agreed upon and it will happen. I just hope that no strife ensues as a result, all criminals be held accountable, and those cronies in the Lebanese government re-compose themselves and work for the interests of the Lebanese people as a whole, not just the interests of their sects or their own selfish agendas... Only then would a bright future be ensured Lebanon.

Oh, yeah, one more thing: Syria and Israel (and all other external governments) have to stay out of Lebanese affairs because... well, I don't like Syria's government, nor Israel's.

Salaam, from Saracen