UN Security Council Resolution 1757, passed on Wednesday to establish a mixed Lebanese-international court to try suspects in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and 22 others in February 2005, has sparked intense and justified debate. This is indeed a historic resolution, especially coupled with the international investigation into the murders and other bombings that have plagued Lebanon in recent years. The confusing truth is that the positions of both the resolution’s supporters and opponents are correct to a large extent: the resolution promises justice and an end to impunity for the as-yet unidentified killers and bombers; it infringes on Lebanese sovereignty; it exacerbates existing domestic political polarization between the government and the opposition; it targets Syria and its friends in Lebanon; it ravages the Lebanese legacy of consensus-based national policy-making; and, it offers all Lebanese an opportunity to rally around a new political idea in order to move their country forward again. As such the resolution is merely one more facet of the fundamental ideological war that has defined Lebanon and the Middle East for the past few years. Resolution 1757, like the handful of other United Nations resolutions before it on Lebanon, is about the exercise of power as much as it is about the administration of justice. The power in question is that of the United States, the Lebanese government and their allies in the region, against Syria, Iran, Hezbollah and their friends. The American-led forces that invaded Iraq in 2003 offered one model of bringing about political change in the region, and it has been an ugly sight. The use of UN resolutions in Lebanon (and Iran) is the other option now being attempted. The ultimate political aim is the same: to use diplomatic means to break the Syrian regime or force a Libya-style complete reversal of its policies – like the Iraqi regime was broken militarily. The use of UN Security Council resolutions to achieve this aim is legitimate in the eyes of the world, for two important reasons: a majority of Lebanese clearly wanted to see an end to Syrian domination of their country in 2005, and the same majority wants to stop the decades-old cycle of unsolved assassinations and bombings. The use of UN resolutions brings all these different issues into one process, which is why the positions of both supporters and opponents are correct. The core issue at hand is to bring to justice those who killed Hariri and the other victims, but the political contours of that aim are anchored firmly in accusations that Syria is involved in these crimes. Syria’s insists it is innocent, yet it vehemently opposes the international court that would seem to be the best way to affirm its innocence. Targeting Syria axiomatically means targeting its friends and allies in Lebanon, such as Hezbollah, and its friends in the near abroad, like Iran. They will all fight back and try to quash this process, but they face a widespread global, regional and Lebanese demand to end the impunity of the killers and bombers who have terrorized Lebanon for so long. The vote to establish the court comes at a time when the regional diplomatic dynamics in the Middle East are in flux. Americans, Syrians, Iranians and Saudis all simultaneously meet and negotiate, even as they remain aggressive and hostile toward one another. New relationships and accommodations may well surface in the coming months, centered on the need to stabilize Iraq, remove foreign troops there, resolve the Iranian nuclear issue, and make a serious new effort to resolve the Arab-Israeli crisis. The continued proliferation of Al-Qaeda-like extremist groups throughout the region, such as Fatah Al-Islam in Lebanon, represents a new threat and prod to action for all. Such groups reflect the consequences of allowing the Middle East to drift in its sea of spiraling and increasingly inter-connected conflicts. Many in Lebanon and abroad accuse Syria of sponsoring Fatah Al-Islam, which Syria again denies. Americans, and some Europeans and Arabs, see Syria and Iran as the vortex of conflict-promotion and mischief-making in the region, which is why they have worked so diligently in recent years to break the back of the regimes in Damascus and Tehran. Resolution 1757 is the latest weapon in this war, and it is potent because it enjoys international and regional legitimacy, due to the prevalent Lebanese demand to bring the killers and bombers to justice. The rigorous international investigation underway and the judicial trial to follow will reveal who is guilty or innocent. In the meantime, we should not confuse the two core dynamics of this process: the noble pursuit of justice for Lebanon, and the brutal exercise of antagonistic state power by the US, Syria, Iran and interested others, who will either reach a political accommodation soon, or recklessly fight to the death and leave this region – starting with Iraq and Lebanon – a devastated wasteland.
Rami G. Khouriwrites for THE DAILY STAR
