The Hariri assassination was not, then, a “terrorist bombing,” as the
Resolution repeatedly colours it. So why present it this way?
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 “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. Yet no one has ever claimed responsibility
for the Hariri assassination, much less threatened 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 ˝
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 Fouad Siniora 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.
Notes:
(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.
(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
(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
Comments (1)
1. Written by ali on 22-07-2007 23:10
Why does this site not mention the fact that most weapons found and seized in Iraq (used by Sunni groups and Shia militias) are manufactured in Iran. Or the fact that mortars landing on the International (Green) Zone are Iranian-manufactured. Or that terrorists from Afghanistan have been coming through Iran to Iraq.
If you really want to \\\\\\\'awaken the ummah\\\\\\\' then you have to cite all that are causing problems, Israel, Iran, Saudi..etc
Of course if you remove this message or don\\\\\\\'t believe in such policy then it is obvious that you don\\\\\\\'t really wish to \\\\\\\'awaken the ummah\\\\\\\' but more keep it in this darkness.
Write Comment
Please keep the topic of messages relevant to the subject of the article.
Comments posted are the sole opinion of the author and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of AIM.
