More Articles...

Ready or Not

 

June 2007 has seen too much bad news from Lebanon.  The fierce fighting at Nahr al-Bared and Ain al-Hilweh Palestinian refugee camps.  The Lebanese Army soldiers ambushed and killed.  The fear-inducing bombs in Beirut.  The more deadly Beirut bomb killing MP Eido.  Clumsy rocket launching.  All of this within a couple weeks of the UN Security Council adopting Resolution 1757 (1) with the announcement that “Those who might be tempted to commit similar crimes would know there would be consequences,” and that establishing this tribunal “would act as a deterrent to those who would commit heinous acts.” (2) As if any violence in Lebanon could be reduced to some petty street crime that might be thwarted given the threat of punishment.

 

In actuality, Lebanon makes even the most convoluted Tom Clancy novel of political intrigue look simplistic.  The sad thing is the Security Council knows this full well.  After all, the two major sponsors of the resolution were the UK and the US, both historical masters of political intrigue, both deeply embroiled in Lebanon’s latest.  Yet they both speak of helping Lebanon through its current political impasse so as to bring justice to those responsible for this “terrorist crime.” In fact, the Hariri killing is referred to as “terrorist” 8 times within the text of this brief resolution.  How fitting for America’s “war on terror.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Linguistically, this word “terror” used to be a specific adjective indicating extreme fear.  Thus random acts of violence against civilians were seen as “terrorist attacks” because the threat of continued violence was intended to frighten the general population, thereby creating ethical dilemmas for the leaders of that population, thus ultimately coercing a desired action. But an apt phrase becomes a buzz word, and a buzz word becomes, through connotation and implication, a word of manipulation.

 

On 14 February 2005, a massive bomb killed 23 people.  The target was undoubtedly former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.  Given his stature and influence, it would be appropriate to label the killing an “assassination.”  The fact that he had left the office of Prime Minister nearly four months prior to his death does, however, add an interesting twist to the question of motive.  His death was a great loss to Lebanon.  His murder was absolutely and completely abominable.  But was this a “terrorist crime” as the UN Security Council has proclaimed?

                  

 

Unfortunately, Lebanon is no stranger to violence. This beautiful little slip of a Mediterranean country has long suffered fighting and killing of every description.   The Washington Post recently noted that “at least 35 Lebanese politicians, clerics and journalists have been struck down by assassins in Lebanon's 63 years of independence.” The report quoted former Prime Minister Salim Hoss (who himself survived a car bombing in 1984) as saying that Lebanon is ‘unrivalled by any other country in the world’ in the number of unpunished killings.” (3)  Robert Fisk, veteran UK reporter of the region notes that “not a single Lebanese assassination has been solved since 1976.” (4)  Despite all the unresolved violence, however, the Lebanese remain resilient.  They will passionately decry the killing, but refuse to cower.  They were not in any way “terrorised” by the Hariri assassination.  They were angry and they were grief-stricken.  But not frightened.

 

A crime of terror carries a threat.  There has been no credible claim to responsibility for the Hariri assassination, no credible threat to repeat the action unless. . . unless what?  Ironically, the assassination provided the impetus to send the message to Syria that its services were no longer required.  And as Syria went into Lebanon by invitation, so too it left.  No fighting, just a simple withdrawal.  Granted there have been several assassinations since February 2005; those targeted were “anti-Syria,” as the media likes to phrase it.  Oddly enough, though, this “clear pattern of assassinations” (Bush’s new buzz word, also used in the Resolution so as to established extended jurisdiction of the Security Council) took a commercial break: July—August 2006.  If anything in the past 2 ½ years has “terrorised” the Lebanese people, it was this horrific Israeli war.

 

                     

 

The Hariri assassination was not, then, a “terrorist bombing,” as the Resolution repeatedly colours it.  So why present it this way?  Why, indeed, the furore over this particular assassination while all the others go virtually ignored?  The only logical answer is that to do so serves a political purpose: so the event can be portrayed as a symbol of the US/UK you’re-either with-us-or-against-us-war-on-terror-we’re-making-a-new-middle-east-whether-you-like-it-or-not.

 

The five countries who abstained from voting for the Resolution pointed out its legal shortcomings and inconsistencies.  They pointed out that, particularly due to the current political situation, imposing a tribunal violated Lebanon’s sovereignty.  The UK representative countered that “it was a decision properly taken for action to break a long-standing impasse.” (5) Rather than encouraging a solution to the impasse so that the Lebanese might then resolve the assassination themselves, the UK deemed it easier to just step in and resolve it for them.

 

More puzzling though, was the statement by the main sponsor of the Resolution.  The US representative and Council President Zalmay Khalilzad stated that “all parties were urged to act responsibly and abide by their obligations to support Lebanon’s sovereignty and political independence.”  As journalist Awni Sadeq remarked, however,

“What hurts most is that the UN resolution was issued at a request from the Lebanese government following Prime Minister Fouad Siniora's letter to the UN Security Council demanding this resolution be under the seventh chapter of the UN Charter.  Second, the pro-government team does not understand the consequences of the resolution, which places Lebanon under the international custodianship nominally, and the US custodianship actually. Despite this obvious fact, this team continues to claim that it defends Lebanon's independence and sovereignty. What a joke!” (6)

Khalilzad continued on to state that—and here, dear reader, I had to put down my cup of coffee, wipe my glasses and read it again to make sure I got it right—he stated that “the United States had concluded that failure to act in support of Lebanon was unacceptable.” (7)

 

And then I read the response of Tarik Mitri, Minister of Culture and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Lebanon.  He said that

 “the Security Council had never hesitated in expressing its support and commitment to Lebanon and its sovereignty and independence in the wake of the Mr. Hariri’s assassination and the political assassination of other Lebanese leaders.  The Council’s action today, binding under Chapter VII, left no doubt of its continued support.  The Council had also stood by Lebanon in the face of Israeli aggression last year and had called on the international community to play its role in ending that crisis.  He reiterated that the Council’s action today, which had been ‘meticulously considered,’ would underpin efforts to ensure peace and stability in Lebanon.” (8)

In all honesty, this made me so nauseous that I couldn’t continue writing for two days.

 

Now I distinctly remember personally arranging a protest here in London in front of the US Embassy in August 2006.  We all knew that the US propelled and supported Israel’s vicious attack on Lebanon.  The US has never made a secret about this.  Just a sample, then:

“President Bush rejected Lebanon’s calls for a cease-fire in escalating Mideast violence on Friday, saying only that Israel should try to limit civilian casualties as it steps up attacks on its neighbor.

“The president is not going to make military decisions for Israel,” White House spokesman Tony Snow said.

Lebanon’s prime minister asked Bush, during a phone call Friday, to pressure Israel for a cease-fire. But Bush told Prime Minister Fuad Saniora that Israelis have a right to protect themselves.” (9)

 

                           

And then, of course:

 “Former ambassador to the UN John Bolton told the BBC that before any ceasefire Washington wanted Israel to eliminate Hezbollah's military capability.

Mr Bolton said an early ceasefire would have been ‘dangerous and misguided.’

He said the US decided to join efforts to end the conflict only when it was clear Israel's campaign wasn't working.

Mr Bolton, a controversial and blunt-speaking figure, said he was ‘damned proud of what we did’ to prevent an early ceasefire.” (10)

 

That it took 33 days to achieve a ceasefire meant that 1300 Lebanese died.  Yet Mitri referred to the summer’s tragedy as a “crisis” of “Israeli aggression,” similar to the words chosen by Tony Blair when he visited Siniora in Beirut September 2006, when he characterised the summer as the “recent crisis” and the “recent conflict.” (11) This deliberate downplay of the “Second War in Lebanon,” the name pronounced by Israel in March 2007, (12) seems bizarre in light of the Hariri assassination being upgraded to a “terrorist crime.”  Perhaps neither Khalilzad nor Mitri has the time or inclination to establish a UN investigation of the summer 2006.

 

This past December I spent a couple weeks in Lebanon.  Even though the cleaning and patching up had begun, the destruction I saw left me numb.  What was most eerie was that, while some areas were obliterated, others seemed unscathed.  When I met up with a dear friend from Tripoli, I asked how he had fared during the war.  He said it really hadn’t affected them much.  They watched it on television, just as we had.  Ironically, the crisis has since changed its mask and currently challenges my friend’s home.

 

                 

The significance of my winter experience rings through now with ominous tones.  How, I have asked myself, can the US have the audacity to go on record with this Resolution in saying that they “had concluded that failure to act in support of Lebanon was unacceptable”?  How—I am baffled—could a Lebanese official echo this camaraderie?  The only plausible answer is that there is more than one “Lebanon.”  Author Sandra Mackey in her book Lebanon: A House Divided argues that Lebanon has been plagued by violence due to an identity crisis.  Perhaps it is not just the Lebanese themselves, but those who view the Lebanese, who stumble on their differences rather than celebrating their similarities.  I myself would rather judge a man by the goodness in his heart than by the name of his village.

 

This Resolution wears the guise of the Guardian of Truth and Justice.  Never mind their conclusion seems decided already. (13) After all, George Bush, receiving Lebanese visitors in the White House, announced that he was "going to hang Bashar [President Bashar al-Assad of Syria] by the balls." (14) With Resolution 1757, the Security Council will set up judges, prosecutors, deputy prosecutors, registrars and defence officers.  The Council is set to impose justice.  It is allegedly ready to determine something as esoteric as truth and justice. Yet it fails even to acknowledge the basic nature of the country involved.  It fails even to acknowledge the basic nature of the crime in question.  The pathway to justice is replete with cracks.  Ready or not, here we come.

1. 1757 establishes a special tribunal to hear the Hariri assassination case outside Lebanon with international judges and prosecutors. 

Under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, which deals with threats to international peace, the findings of the tribunal can be militarily enforced.

 

2. http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/sc9029.doc.htm  All subsequent references to the Resolution are from this UN source.

 

3. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/24/AR2006112400269.html

 

4. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17878.htm

 

5. http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/sc9029.doc.htm

 

6. http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/07/06/18/10133076.html

 

7. http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/sc9029.doc.htm

 

8. http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/sc9029.doc.htm

 

9. http://www.rinf.com/columnists/news/bush-rejects-lebanons-call-for-cease-fire

 

10. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/middle_east/6479377.stm.  The BBC documentary The Summer War in Lebanon is found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/specials/1516_assignment/page36.shtml

 

11. http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page10049.asp

 

12. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/840485.html

 

13. “There is converging evidence pointing at both Lebanese and Syrian involvement in this terrorist act. It is a well known fact that Syrian Military Intelligence had a pervasive presence in Lebanon at the least until the withdrawal of the Syrian forces pursuant to resolution 1559. The former senior security officials of Lebanon were their appointees. Given the infiltration of Lebanese institutions and society by the Syrian and Lebanese intelligence services working in tandem, it would be difficult to envisage a scenario whereby such a complex assassination plot could have been carried out without their knowledge.”

Report of the International Independent Investigation Commission Established Pursuant to Security Council Resolution 1595 (October 2005) http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2005/hariri-report_uniiic_19oct2005.htm

 

14. As reported by Robert Fisk, see http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17813.htm

More Articles...