Reasons behind Lebanese developments

Subscribe
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Marianna Belenkaya) - The situation in Lebanon raises a lot of questions but gives few answers.

One of them is whether or not the recent tensions have flared up after the UN Security Council began discussing a draft resolution establishing a tribunal to try the suspected killers of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri without parliament ratification in Lebanon. The answer to this question is equally important for Beirut and Damascus.

The link between the latest developments in Lebanon and the draft Security Council resolution is glaringly obvious. On May 17, the draft's initiators - the U.S., Britain and France - circulated it among the other Security Council members. On May 20, an unheard-of armed confrontation flared up in northern Lebanon between the Lebanese army and Fath Al-Islam fighters based in the Palestinian refugee camp Nahr al-Bared. A bomb went off on the same day in a Christian Beirut neighborhood, followed by another bomb attack on May 21 in another neighborhood, one mainly populated by Muslims. Was it all a coincidence or a carefully planned course of events?

Incidentally, Russia has repeatedly warned that pushing the tribunal issue, let alone setting it up without accord in Lebanese society, would only aggravate tensions. Although generally acknowledging the need for the tribunal, Russia still insisted on waiting until the ruling March 14 coalition and the opposition found common grounds on the issue. However, the Lebanese government, frustrated by lack of progress in the past six months, asked the UN to set up the tribunal without parliament ratification. The decision naturally triggered protests of the opposition.

Wary of the situation getting out of control, Russia prefers to proceed without haste. The tribunal is not an emergency. The International Independent Investigation Commission (IIIC) led by Serge Brammertz is carrying out the investigation into Hariri's assassination. Its mandate has been extended until the summer of 2008. Who is to be tried by the tribunal before the investigation is over? And the fact that the tribunal exists will hardly unnerve the masterminds of the recent explosions in Lebanon, preventing new tragedies. Therefore, the "much ado" about the tribunal looks more like political campaigning unrelated to tracking down the murderers. The tribunal issue has sparked much controversy in Lebanon and elsewhere.

The ruling coalition was quick to blame the recent explosions in Beirut and clashes in Nahr al-Bared on Syria, its favorite scapegoat, hinting at alleged contacts between Fath Al-Islam and Syria's special services which seek to destabilize Lebanon and help Hariri's murderers avoid the tribunal. Top Syrian officials are suspected of being involved in Hariri's assassination. Damascus has strongly denied its involvement or any contacts with Fath Al-Islam. So far, no evidence of that is available except statements by several eyewitnesses that the group's fighters (nationals of several Islamic states) penetrated into Lebanon from Syrian territory. However, their testimony does not prove that the "tribunal-Damascus-Lebanese events" chain is logically correct.

Practice shows that each outburst of tensions in Lebanon prods advocates of the early setting up of the tribunal to immediate action. Russia's warning against haste would hardly help, but Moscow is unlikely to object to passing the UN resolution in any case. "We do not question the need to set up the tribunal, but we do not approve of using it as a tool for settling accounts," a well informed source told RIA Novosti speaking on condition of anonymity. If the resolution is passed, Russia will "make every effort to prevent this," the source added. The situation is not so critical now, and it would be unwise to strain relations with anyone over it.

It follows that Syria will not benefit from the situation; on the contrary, it faces tensions growing around it.

Syria has long been facing allegations that terrorists were moving to Iraq through its territory; now it is similarly being accused of fuelling terrorism in Lebanon. Coupled with Fath Al-Islam's alleged contacts with al-Qaeda and its "representative" in Iraq, Jaish Al-Islam, the accusations against Damascus sound quite serious. But, is there any evidence that the Syrian regime is indeed linked to al-Qaeda?

True, terrorists might be using Syria's territory for transit purposes. But does that prove the country's government has anything to do with it? Terrorists are also penetrating Iraq from the territory of Saudi Arabia, but for some reason it has never occurred to the West, primarily to the U.S., to accuse the Saudi government of supporting terrorism. At least now. As regards Damascus, the situation is different.

Moreover, if there is some evidence of the Bashar Assad regime's contacts with international terrorists in Iraq (or in Lebanon), why has it never been presented to the UN Security Council? Damascus has asked Iraqi leadership and Washington on multiple occasions to supply it with information on terrorists arriving in Iraq from Syria, but to no avail. So is Washington really interested in anti-terrorist cooperation? Or all it wants is to change the Syrian regime?

Another question is how well President Bashar Assad controls the situation today. Is he really capable of checking the flow of terrorists through Syria's territory? Who really controls the processes underway in Syria, and who will control them in the future? These questions are of great importance to the international community. How to avoid the mistake made in Iraq, where the regime change eventually turned the country into yet another al-Qaeda's base?

The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.

Newsfeed
0
To participate in the discussion
log in or register
loader
Chats
Заголовок открываемого материала