BEIRUT, Lebanon - A bomb ripped through a vocal anti-Syrian lawmaker’s car near the popular waterfront in the Lebanese capital Wednesday, killing him and nine other people in the latest assassination of a Lebanese opponent of Damascus.
Showing posts with label Rafik Hariri. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rafik Hariri. Show all posts
Thursday, June 14, 2007
It's Summertime, perfect time for black ops in Lebanon
Bomb blast kills anti-Syrian lawmaker, 9 others in Lebanon
BEIRUT, Lebanon - A bomb ripped through a vocal anti-Syrian lawmaker’s car near the popular waterfront in the Lebanese capital Wednesday, killing him and nine other people in the latest assassination of a Lebanese opponent of Damascus.
The blast, a new blow to the stability of this conflict-torn nation, comes days after the government began putting together an international tribunal ordered by the United Nations to try suspects in the killing of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in Beirut two years ago _ a move strongly opposed by Syria and its allies in Lebanon.
The slain lawmaker, Walid Eido, was a prominent supporter of the tribunal and a close friend of Hariri. He is the seventh anti-Syrian figure killed in Lebanon in the past two years, starting with the February 2005 death of Hariri in a massive Beirut suicide car bombing. Many Lebanese have accused Syria of being behind the slayings, a claim Damascus denies.
Eido’s supporters quickly blamed Syria for Wednesday’s bomb attack. Hariri’s son, Saad Hariri, the leader of the anti-Syrian majority bloc in parliament, indirectly accused Damascus, saying "agencies of evil" seeking "Lebanon’s submission" carried out the blast.
Syria controlled Lebanon for 29 years until it was forced out after Hariri’s assassination, and its Lebanese opponents believe it is seeking to regain domination by plunging the country into chaos.
Prime Minister Fuad Saniora declared a national day of mourning Thursday for Eido and the other victims. He also called for an emergency meeting of Arab foreign ministers and the international community to help in the investigation of the legislator’s assassination.
"Lebanon and the Lebanese will not submit to terrorism or intimidation. We will not surrender to terrorism and we will triumph. Lebanon will survive," Saniora said in a televised speech Wednesday night.
The Bush administration - a major Saniora ally - also condemned the bombing.
"We stand with the people of Lebanon and Prime Minister Saniora’s government as they battle extremists who are trying to derail Lebanon’s march to peace, prosperity and a lasting democracy," Gordon Johndroe, the National Security Council spokesman, said in Washington.
Asked if Washington saw Syria’s hand in the attack, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said, "I can’t tell you at this point, but very clearly this is the work of those who intend or want to undermine Lebanese democracy."
The slaying was likely to further enflame Lebanon’s bitter power struggle between Saniora’s Western-backed government and its Syrian-backed opponents, led by the Hezbollah militant group. Many fear the violence could push the polarized nation with a fragile balance of ethnic and religious groups into a new civil war.
Wednesday’s blast also came as Lebanon is dealing with a separate conflict that threatens to spiral out of control: a nearly four-week battle with al-Qaida-inspired militants barricaded inside a Palestinian refugee camp near the northern city of Tripoli. More than 140 people have been killed in the Lebanese army’s siege of the Nahr el-Bared camp.
The bomb ripped through Eido’s black Mercedes just before 6 p.m. on a narrow side street off the Beirut Corniche in Manara, a mainly Sunni Muslim sector of the capital where the 65-year-old Eido often went in the afternoons to play cards with friends. The palm tree-lined boulevard along the Mediterranean shoreline is a favorite among Beirutis for evening strolls.
The explosion gutted Eido’s car and left others nearby in flames, shattering windows in nearby apartments and strewing the street with rubble. A woman, screaming and covered in blood, was pulled from the carnage by residents who rushed to help. Body parts were thrown on a nearby soccer field.
Eido’s 35-year-old son, two bodyguards and six passers-by were also killed in the explosion, security officials said on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media.
In the Aisha Bakkar neighborhood where Eido lived, a small number of his supporters burned car tires and blocked a street. "Syria is after us," one shouted to local TV cameras. Troops intervened to prevent the protest from getting out of control.
The Lebanese military and police had already imposed heavy security measures around Beirut in reaction to a series of bomb blasts that have hit the capital since the Nahr el-Bared fighting began. Those explosions killed two people, yet another layer of instability rattling the country.
Syria’s top allies in Lebanon, President Emile Lahoud and parliament speaker Nabih Berri, joined the chorus of those condemning Wednesday’s bombing. Hezbollah called it part of a "cycle of roaming terrorism targeting Lebanon and its stability" and urged national unity to confront it.
But Saad Hariri all but openly put the blame on Syria. In a televised speech, he called for Arab nations and the international community to boycott the "terrorist regime that is attacking Lebanon."
The issue of the international tribunal has sharply divided Lebanon. The U.N. called for its creation months ago to try suspects in Rafik Hariri’s assassination and in other killings if they prove to be connected. But Hezbollah and its allies have blocked Lebanese approval for the tribunal, preventing parliament from meeting for months to vote on the measure.
With the government paralyzed, Saniora and his supporters asked the U.N. to impose the tribunal’s creation. The Security Council did so with a May 30 resolution, bringing denunciations from Hezbollah and its allies. Syria has said it will not cooperate with the court.
Original article posted here.
BEIRUT, Lebanon - A bomb ripped through a vocal anti-Syrian lawmaker’s car near the popular waterfront in the Lebanese capital Wednesday, killing him and nine other people in the latest assassination of a Lebanese opponent of Damascus.
Friday, June 01, 2007
Robert Parry looks at Harriri Murder and Syrian Blame Game
The Hariri Case & Double Standards
By Robert Parry
A terrible crime has been committed in the Middle East. Many innocent people have died. International law may have been violated. The United Nations is determined to bring the perpetrators to justice. An extraordinary international tribunal will be organized with the authority to assess guilt and recommend punishments.
As this crime drama unfolds, the two great defenders of international law and world peace are George W. Bush and Tony Blair. Their determination secured U.N. approval for a special tribunal to identify and punish the conspirators behind the Feb. 14, 2005, bombing that killed former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and 22 others.
Yet, as worthy as it would be to find and punish Hariri’s assassins, the larger message from the U.N.’s tribunal is that the one truly enduring and overriding precept of international relations is that might makes right.
Though the U.S. President and the British Prime Minister have the blood of possibly a half million Iraqis on their hands – deaths attributable to an illegal invasion in defiance of the U.N. Charter – no one in a position of authority would be foolhardy enough to suggest that Bush and Blair be hauled before a tribunal for their crimes.
Bush and Blair, after all, head powerful governments that possess nuclear arsenals and hold U.N. Security Council vetoes. Whatever the facts surrounding Bush-Blair violations of international law – regardless of how much bloodshed they have caused – they remain effectively immune from international law, beyond the reach of justice.
Or as Bush likes to joke when asked if his actions have violated international law, “International law? I better call my lawyer.”
Now, in the Hariri case, the world can again expect to witness the boundless capacity of the U.S. government and the American news media for hypocrisy.
Even as the U.S./U.K.-inflicted carnage continues unabated in Iraq, the principal architects of that human catastrophe will reemerge as principled defenders of peace and justice in Lebanon. To date, the U.S. news media appears powerless to spot any parallels in the cases or to detect any irony.
The major U.S. news outlets also appear to have forgotten that the preliminary U.N. inquiry which rushed to publicize suspicions about official Syrian guilt collapsed amid confessions of paid-for perjury and recanted testimony. The original investigator, German Detlev Mehlis, resigned and the U.N. essentially repudiated his work.
Mehlis’s successor, Belgian Serge Brammertz, announced that he would examine a wide range of possible motives and suspects, including Hariri’s business rivals. Since then, Brammertz has proceeded with far more caution and professionalism, keeping what evidence he has close to his vest.
Pariah State
But, given the behavior of the first U.N. prosecutor, Syria and its Lebanese allies have reason to suspect that the U.N. tribunal is likely to be more a pawn of U.S. power than an impartial body seeking justice.
As a pariah state in the eyes of the Bush administration, Syria knows it can’t count on presumption of innocence or balanced treatment in the Western news media, either.
In many ways, we appear to be in for a replay of the biased WMD case made against Iraq’s Saddam Hussein in 2002-03. Just as every Iraqi action was viewed through a prism of presumed guilt, now every scrap of evidence against Syria will be embraced while contrary facts will be discarded.
Though Syria – or at least its freewheeling security services – should remain high on everyone’s suspect list, the U.N.’s initial rush to judgment and the Western news media’s largely uncritical treatment of those accusations suggest a forthcoming propaganda bonanza for the Bush administration, which has been eager to take on Damascus.
It’s still not known how far Brammertz’s investigation has advanced beyond where Mehlis was or whether Brammertz has corroborated or debunked Mehlis’s tentative findings. Initially at least, Syrian officials hailed Brammertz’s more open-minded probe.
On June 14, 2006, Fayssal Mekdad, Syria’s Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs, praised “its objectivity and professionalism” and said the investigators “had begun to uncover the truth” after Mehlis departed. Mekdad promised that Syria would cooperate.
Since then, however, pro-Syrian Lebanese officials have led the resistance to the special U.N. tribunal, possibly signaling concern that Brammertz has uncovered damaging evidence against Syria or simply out of concern that the tribunal won’t be fair.
Syria’s grievances date back to October 2005 when Mehlis’s preliminary report pointed the finger at senior officials in the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad.
“There is probable cause to believe that the decision to assassinate former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri could not have been taken without the approval of top-ranked Syrian security officials and could not have been further organized without the collusion of their counterparts in the Lebanese security services,” declared the U.N.’s first interim report on Oct. 20, 2005.
President Bush termed the findings “very disturbing” and called for the U.N. Security Council to take action against Syria.
Press Stampede
The U.S. press quickly joined the stampede in assuming Syrian guilt.
On Oct. 25, 2005, a New York Times editorial said the U.N. investigation had been “tough and meticulous” in establishing “some deeply troubling facts” about Hariri’s murderers. The Times demanded punishment of top Syrian officials and their Lebanese accomplices, although the Times cautioned against the Bush administration’s eagerness for “regime change.”
But – as we noted at the time – the U.N. investigative report was anything but “meticulous.” Indeed, it read more like a compilation of circumstantial evidence and conspiracy theories than a dispassionate pursuit of the truth. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “The Dangerously Incomplete Hariri Report.”]
Mehlis’s initial report, for instance, failed to follow a key lead, the Japanese identification of the Mitsubishi Canter Van that apparently carried the explosives used in the bombing that killed Hariri and 22 others.
The van was reported stolen in Sagamihara City, Japan, on Oct. 12, 2004, four months before the bombing, but Mehlis’s hasty report indicated no effort to investigate how the vehicle got from the island of Japan to Beirut or who might have last possessed it.
The report also relied heavily on the testimony of two dubious witnesses. One of the witnesses – Zuhair Zuhair Ibn Muhammad Said Saddik – was identified by the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel as a swindler who boasted about becoming “a millionaire” from his Hariri testimony.
The other, Hussam Taher Hussam, later recanted his testimony about Syrian involvement, saying he lied to the Mehlis investigators after being kidnapped, tortured and offered $1.3 million by Lebanese officials.
Having relied on “witnesses” who appeared to have been set-ups, Mehlis found his investigation under a cloud. In a follow-up report on Dec. 10, 2005, he sought to salvage his position by hurling accusations of witness tampering at Syrian authorities.
But by then, as noted in a New York Times news article on Dec. 7, 2005, the conflicting accusations had given the Mehlis investigation the feel of “a fictional spy thriller.”
More evidence also emerged about the shipment of the Mitsubishi van. According to a U.N. update released on Dec. 10, 2005, the stolen van was traced from Japan to Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, a close U.S. regional ally and a major center for commerce.
But it was unclear how the van got from Dubai to Beirut. According to the update, U.N. investigators had sought help from “UAE authorities to trace the movements of this vehicle, including reviewing shipping documents from the UAE and, with the assistance of the UAE authorities, attempting to locate and interview the consignees of the container in which the vehicle or its parts is believed to have been shipped.”
Evidence about the van’s ownership could either buttress or repudiate the tentative U.N. investigative conclusions implicating Syrian intelligence and pro-Syrian Lebanese officials in Hariri’s murder.
New Approach
In early 2006, Mehlis resigned and was replaced by Brammertz, who quietly jettisoned many of Mehlis’s conclusions and began entertaining other investigative leads.
“Given the many different positions occupied by Mr. Hariri, and his wide range of public and private-sector activities, the [U.N.] commission was investigating a number of different motives, including political motivations, personal vendettas, financial circumstances and extremist ideologies, or any combination of those motivations,” according to a U.N. statement released after Brammertz briefed the Security Council on June 14, 2006.
As part of his “wide reach,” Brammertz said he had made 32 requests for information to 13 different countries.
Though the U.N. didn’t directly criticize Mehlis’s earlier efforts, Brammertz’s investigation represented an obvious break from the approach of his predecessor. Still, the U.S. news media, which had played the initial Mehlis accusations against Syria as front-page news, barely mentioned the shift in the revamped U.N. probe.
Neither then nor since has the U.S. news media sought to alert the American people that the distinct impression they got in 2005 – that the Syrian government had engineered a terrorist bombing in Beirut – had become a lot less clear.
On one level, this U.S. journalistic failure to be evenhanded with the unpopular Syrian regime goes to the career fears of reporters who can expect that balanced reporting in such a case might earn them the label “Syrian apologist.” That risk would rise dramatically if it later turned out that Syrian security officials were guilty.
Journalists faced similar worries during the run-up to the Iraq War when any skepticism about Bush's WMD claims brought down the wrath of many readers, politicians and even news executives caught up in the war fever.
Career-minded reporters judged that the smart strategy was to play up the anti-Iraq WMD claims – even when they came from dubious and self-interested sources like the Iraqi National Congress – and to play down or ignore counter-evidence. The big career risk was that a skeptical reporter would be in hot water if it turned out Iraq indeed was hiding WMD.
However, after four-plus years of bloody war in Iraq – and no WMD – Americans might have expected the major news media to show a little more skepticism and exercise a little more caution when another round of unproven allegations were leveled at another Middle Eastern nation in Bush’s crosshairs.
Some Americans also might enjoy stories in the Washington Post or the New York Times about whether Bush, Blair and some of their senior advisers should be forced to stand before a U.N. tribunal empowered to judge if they violated international law and deserve punishment.
But that would require the world to be a place where equal justice is applied to all government officials who break the most important covenants of international behavior, not just those from weak countries.
Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'
Original article posted here.
By Robert Parry
A terrible crime has been committed in the Middle East. Many innocent people have died. International law may have been violated. The United Nations is determined to bring the perpetrators to justice. An extraordinary international tribunal will be organized with the authority to assess guilt and recommend punishments.
As this crime drama unfolds, the two great defenders of international law and world peace are George W. Bush and Tony Blair. Their determination secured U.N. approval for a special tribunal to identify and punish the conspirators behind the Feb. 14, 2005, bombing that killed former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and 22 others.
Yet, as worthy as it would be to find and punish Hariri’s assassins, the larger message from the U.N.’s tribunal is that the one truly enduring and overriding precept of international relations is that might makes right.
Though the U.S. President and the British Prime Minister have the blood of possibly a half million Iraqis on their hands – deaths attributable to an illegal invasion in defiance of the U.N. Charter – no one in a position of authority would be foolhardy enough to suggest that Bush and Blair be hauled before a tribunal for their crimes.
Bush and Blair, after all, head powerful governments that possess nuclear arsenals and hold U.N. Security Council vetoes. Whatever the facts surrounding Bush-Blair violations of international law – regardless of how much bloodshed they have caused – they remain effectively immune from international law, beyond the reach of justice.
Or as Bush likes to joke when asked if his actions have violated international law, “International law? I better call my lawyer.”
Now, in the Hariri case, the world can again expect to witness the boundless capacity of the U.S. government and the American news media for hypocrisy.
Even as the U.S./U.K.-inflicted carnage continues unabated in Iraq, the principal architects of that human catastrophe will reemerge as principled defenders of peace and justice in Lebanon. To date, the U.S. news media appears powerless to spot any parallels in the cases or to detect any irony.
The major U.S. news outlets also appear to have forgotten that the preliminary U.N. inquiry which rushed to publicize suspicions about official Syrian guilt collapsed amid confessions of paid-for perjury and recanted testimony. The original investigator, German Detlev Mehlis, resigned and the U.N. essentially repudiated his work.
Mehlis’s successor, Belgian Serge Brammertz, announced that he would examine a wide range of possible motives and suspects, including Hariri’s business rivals. Since then, Brammertz has proceeded with far more caution and professionalism, keeping what evidence he has close to his vest.
Pariah State
But, given the behavior of the first U.N. prosecutor, Syria and its Lebanese allies have reason to suspect that the U.N. tribunal is likely to be more a pawn of U.S. power than an impartial body seeking justice.
As a pariah state in the eyes of the Bush administration, Syria knows it can’t count on presumption of innocence or balanced treatment in the Western news media, either.
In many ways, we appear to be in for a replay of the biased WMD case made against Iraq’s Saddam Hussein in 2002-03. Just as every Iraqi action was viewed through a prism of presumed guilt, now every scrap of evidence against Syria will be embraced while contrary facts will be discarded.
Though Syria – or at least its freewheeling security services – should remain high on everyone’s suspect list, the U.N.’s initial rush to judgment and the Western news media’s largely uncritical treatment of those accusations suggest a forthcoming propaganda bonanza for the Bush administration, which has been eager to take on Damascus.
It’s still not known how far Brammertz’s investigation has advanced beyond where Mehlis was or whether Brammertz has corroborated or debunked Mehlis’s tentative findings. Initially at least, Syrian officials hailed Brammertz’s more open-minded probe.
On June 14, 2006, Fayssal Mekdad, Syria’s Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs, praised “its objectivity and professionalism” and said the investigators “had begun to uncover the truth” after Mehlis departed. Mekdad promised that Syria would cooperate.
Since then, however, pro-Syrian Lebanese officials have led the resistance to the special U.N. tribunal, possibly signaling concern that Brammertz has uncovered damaging evidence against Syria or simply out of concern that the tribunal won’t be fair.
Syria’s grievances date back to October 2005 when Mehlis’s preliminary report pointed the finger at senior officials in the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad.
“There is probable cause to believe that the decision to assassinate former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri could not have been taken without the approval of top-ranked Syrian security officials and could not have been further organized without the collusion of their counterparts in the Lebanese security services,” declared the U.N.’s first interim report on Oct. 20, 2005.
President Bush termed the findings “very disturbing” and called for the U.N. Security Council to take action against Syria.
Press Stampede
The U.S. press quickly joined the stampede in assuming Syrian guilt.
On Oct. 25, 2005, a New York Times editorial said the U.N. investigation had been “tough and meticulous” in establishing “some deeply troubling facts” about Hariri’s murderers. The Times demanded punishment of top Syrian officials and their Lebanese accomplices, although the Times cautioned against the Bush administration’s eagerness for “regime change.”
But – as we noted at the time – the U.N. investigative report was anything but “meticulous.” Indeed, it read more like a compilation of circumstantial evidence and conspiracy theories than a dispassionate pursuit of the truth. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “The Dangerously Incomplete Hariri Report.”]
Mehlis’s initial report, for instance, failed to follow a key lead, the Japanese identification of the Mitsubishi Canter Van that apparently carried the explosives used in the bombing that killed Hariri and 22 others.
The van was reported stolen in Sagamihara City, Japan, on Oct. 12, 2004, four months before the bombing, but Mehlis’s hasty report indicated no effort to investigate how the vehicle got from the island of Japan to Beirut or who might have last possessed it.
The report also relied heavily on the testimony of two dubious witnesses. One of the witnesses – Zuhair Zuhair Ibn Muhammad Said Saddik – was identified by the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel as a swindler who boasted about becoming “a millionaire” from his Hariri testimony.
The other, Hussam Taher Hussam, later recanted his testimony about Syrian involvement, saying he lied to the Mehlis investigators after being kidnapped, tortured and offered $1.3 million by Lebanese officials.
Having relied on “witnesses” who appeared to have been set-ups, Mehlis found his investigation under a cloud. In a follow-up report on Dec. 10, 2005, he sought to salvage his position by hurling accusations of witness tampering at Syrian authorities.
But by then, as noted in a New York Times news article on Dec. 7, 2005, the conflicting accusations had given the Mehlis investigation the feel of “a fictional spy thriller.”
More evidence also emerged about the shipment of the Mitsubishi van. According to a U.N. update released on Dec. 10, 2005, the stolen van was traced from Japan to Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, a close U.S. regional ally and a major center for commerce.
But it was unclear how the van got from Dubai to Beirut. According to the update, U.N. investigators had sought help from “UAE authorities to trace the movements of this vehicle, including reviewing shipping documents from the UAE and, with the assistance of the UAE authorities, attempting to locate and interview the consignees of the container in which the vehicle or its parts is believed to have been shipped.”
Evidence about the van’s ownership could either buttress or repudiate the tentative U.N. investigative conclusions implicating Syrian intelligence and pro-Syrian Lebanese officials in Hariri’s murder.
New Approach
In early 2006, Mehlis resigned and was replaced by Brammertz, who quietly jettisoned many of Mehlis’s conclusions and began entertaining other investigative leads.
“Given the many different positions occupied by Mr. Hariri, and his wide range of public and private-sector activities, the [U.N.] commission was investigating a number of different motives, including political motivations, personal vendettas, financial circumstances and extremist ideologies, or any combination of those motivations,” according to a U.N. statement released after Brammertz briefed the Security Council on June 14, 2006.
As part of his “wide reach,” Brammertz said he had made 32 requests for information to 13 different countries.
Though the U.N. didn’t directly criticize Mehlis’s earlier efforts, Brammertz’s investigation represented an obvious break from the approach of his predecessor. Still, the U.S. news media, which had played the initial Mehlis accusations against Syria as front-page news, barely mentioned the shift in the revamped U.N. probe.
Neither then nor since has the U.S. news media sought to alert the American people that the distinct impression they got in 2005 – that the Syrian government had engineered a terrorist bombing in Beirut – had become a lot less clear.
On one level, this U.S. journalistic failure to be evenhanded with the unpopular Syrian regime goes to the career fears of reporters who can expect that balanced reporting in such a case might earn them the label “Syrian apologist.” That risk would rise dramatically if it later turned out that Syrian security officials were guilty.
Journalists faced similar worries during the run-up to the Iraq War when any skepticism about Bush's WMD claims brought down the wrath of many readers, politicians and even news executives caught up in the war fever.
Career-minded reporters judged that the smart strategy was to play up the anti-Iraq WMD claims – even when they came from dubious and self-interested sources like the Iraqi National Congress – and to play down or ignore counter-evidence. The big career risk was that a skeptical reporter would be in hot water if it turned out Iraq indeed was hiding WMD.
However, after four-plus years of bloody war in Iraq – and no WMD – Americans might have expected the major news media to show a little more skepticism and exercise a little more caution when another round of unproven allegations were leveled at another Middle Eastern nation in Bush’s crosshairs.
Some Americans also might enjoy stories in the Washington Post or the New York Times about whether Bush, Blair and some of their senior advisers should be forced to stand before a U.N. tribunal empowered to judge if they violated international law and deserve punishment.
But that would require the world to be a place where equal justice is applied to all government officials who break the most important covenants of international behavior, not just those from weak countries.
Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'
Original article posted here.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
A whitewash being created. Betcha this "tribunal" will blame Syria, and not look at Israel's role, while 5 nations abstain. The fix is in.
U.N. approves Hariri assassination tribunal
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) -- In a challenge to Syria, the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday voted to set up a court to prosecute the murder two years ago of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.
In pushing through the resolution, Western powers are gambling that the boost to the Lebanese government's authority and to the rule of law will outweigh any violent reaction in the region.
Britain's U.N. ambassador, Emyr Jones Parry, told reporters the vote would "send the right political signal" to Lebanon, a country with a long history of political assassinations, many of which have gone unpunished.
After months of arguments between deeply divided Lebanese politicians and talks between the Beirut government and the United Nations, 10 council members supported the Western-sponsored resolution to set up the court and five abstained.
There were no votes against.
The five countries that abstained -- Russia, China, Qatar, Indonesia and South Africa -- argued that the council was exceeding its authority and interfering in Lebanese affairs.
"It is not appropriate for the Security Council to impose such a tribunal on Lebanon," South African Ambassador Dumisani Kumalo told the council.
The move responds to a request from Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, but the country's parliament has not approved the plan because Speaker Nabih Berri, an opposition leader who disputes the Cabinet's legitimacy, has not convened the chamber.
Syria said the U.N. action violated Lebanese sovereignty and could plunge Lebanon into further instability.
A government statement carried by the official news agency said Syria stuck by its long-standing concerns about the court compromising Syria's own jurisdiction over any Syrians who could be indicted for Hariri's 2005 killing.
"Setting up the court under Chapter Seven violates the sovereignty of Lebanon and could cause the situation there to become worse," the statement said. "There has been no change in the Syrian position on the court."
Ties with Syria
Central to the dispute are Lebanon's ties with Syria, which pro-government Lebanese leaders accuse of killing Hariri and 22 others with a truck bomb in 2005.
Syria denied involvement but was forced to withdraw its troops from Lebanon, ending a 29-year presence.
The outcry over the assassination forced Syria to withdraw troops from Lebanon.
Damascus denies involvement but has indicated it will not cooperate with the court. Washington's U.N. ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, warned Syria on Tuesday it would face "increased pressure" if it did not do so.
Despite warnings by pro-Syrian Lebanese President Emile Lahoud and others that setting up the court could trigger a fresh wave of violence, Western leaders say it is essential as a matter of principle to try Hariri's murderers.
Critics on the council say that invoking Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter to enforce the court's establishment, as the resolution does, is going too far.
Jones Parry rejected that view.
"Legally we can, politically we ought" to set up the court, he said.
But he described Lebanon as "a unique case", brought about by the inability of the Lebanese parliament to endorse the tribunal.
Western envoys amended the resolution last week to allow until June 10 before it goes into force to offer Lebanese factions a last chance to bury their differences over it.
The resolution puts into effect an agreement the United Nations reached with the Lebanese government last November.
Key details of the tribunal, including where it would be based, remain to be decided and diplomats expect a year's delay before it starts working.
Lebanese authorities are currently holding eight people over the Hariri killing. They are four pro-Syrian generals who headed Lebanese security departments at the time and four members of a small Syrian-backed Sunni Muslim group accused of having played a role in monitoring Hariri's movements.
But a continuing U.N. investigation has not yet recommended who should be indicted in the affair.
Hariri's son praises tribunal idea
Hariri's son hailed the U.N. resolution.
"This is a victory for oppressed Lebanon," Saad Hariri, also leader of the parliament's ruling majority, said in a televised address shortly after the Security Council passed the resolution.
"It is the moment of arriving at the gateway of justice," he said, choking with tears. Hariri said the move, opposed by Lebanon's pro-Syrian opposition leaders, was "salvation from the long criminal series of terrorism".
Supporters in mainly Sunni Muslim areas of Beirut went to the streets to celebrate the resolution as fireworks lit the night sky and candles illuminated the streets. Some supporters fired assault rifles into the air.
A stun grenade exploded at about the same time in a Christian suburb of Beirut, causing no casualties or damage.
Original article posted here.
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) -- In a challenge to Syria, the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday voted to set up a court to prosecute the murder two years ago of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.
In pushing through the resolution, Western powers are gambling that the boost to the Lebanese government's authority and to the rule of law will outweigh any violent reaction in the region.
Britain's U.N. ambassador, Emyr Jones Parry, told reporters the vote would "send the right political signal" to Lebanon, a country with a long history of political assassinations, many of which have gone unpunished.
After months of arguments between deeply divided Lebanese politicians and talks between the Beirut government and the United Nations, 10 council members supported the Western-sponsored resolution to set up the court and five abstained.
There were no votes against.
The five countries that abstained -- Russia, China, Qatar, Indonesia and South Africa -- argued that the council was exceeding its authority and interfering in Lebanese affairs.
"It is not appropriate for the Security Council to impose such a tribunal on Lebanon," South African Ambassador Dumisani Kumalo told the council.
The move responds to a request from Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, but the country's parliament has not approved the plan because Speaker Nabih Berri, an opposition leader who disputes the Cabinet's legitimacy, has not convened the chamber.
Syria said the U.N. action violated Lebanese sovereignty and could plunge Lebanon into further instability.
A government statement carried by the official news agency said Syria stuck by its long-standing concerns about the court compromising Syria's own jurisdiction over any Syrians who could be indicted for Hariri's 2005 killing.
"Setting up the court under Chapter Seven violates the sovereignty of Lebanon and could cause the situation there to become worse," the statement said. "There has been no change in the Syrian position on the court."
Ties with Syria
Central to the dispute are Lebanon's ties with Syria, which pro-government Lebanese leaders accuse of killing Hariri and 22 others with a truck bomb in 2005.
Syria denied involvement but was forced to withdraw its troops from Lebanon, ending a 29-year presence.
The outcry over the assassination forced Syria to withdraw troops from Lebanon.
Damascus denies involvement but has indicated it will not cooperate with the court. Washington's U.N. ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, warned Syria on Tuesday it would face "increased pressure" if it did not do so.
Despite warnings by pro-Syrian Lebanese President Emile Lahoud and others that setting up the court could trigger a fresh wave of violence, Western leaders say it is essential as a matter of principle to try Hariri's murderers.
Critics on the council say that invoking Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter to enforce the court's establishment, as the resolution does, is going too far.
Jones Parry rejected that view.
"Legally we can, politically we ought" to set up the court, he said.
But he described Lebanon as "a unique case", brought about by the inability of the Lebanese parliament to endorse the tribunal.
Western envoys amended the resolution last week to allow until June 10 before it goes into force to offer Lebanese factions a last chance to bury their differences over it.
The resolution puts into effect an agreement the United Nations reached with the Lebanese government last November.
Key details of the tribunal, including where it would be based, remain to be decided and diplomats expect a year's delay before it starts working.
Lebanese authorities are currently holding eight people over the Hariri killing. They are four pro-Syrian generals who headed Lebanese security departments at the time and four members of a small Syrian-backed Sunni Muslim group accused of having played a role in monitoring Hariri's movements.
But a continuing U.N. investigation has not yet recommended who should be indicted in the affair.
Hariri's son praises tribunal idea
Hariri's son hailed the U.N. resolution.
"This is a victory for oppressed Lebanon," Saad Hariri, also leader of the parliament's ruling majority, said in a televised address shortly after the Security Council passed the resolution.
"It is the moment of arriving at the gateway of justice," he said, choking with tears. Hariri said the move, opposed by Lebanon's pro-Syrian opposition leaders, was "salvation from the long criminal series of terrorism".
Supporters in mainly Sunni Muslim areas of Beirut went to the streets to celebrate the resolution as fireworks lit the night sky and candles illuminated the streets. Some supporters fired assault rifles into the air.
A stun grenade exploded at about the same time in a Christian suburb of Beirut, causing no casualties or damage.
Original article posted here.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Where there's smoke, there's fire: Why the secrecy regarding the Hariri probe? Answer: Because there's a lot to hide. (Hint: false flag black op)
Russia Runs Into Opposition At UN's Hariri Probe
UNITED NATIONS (AP)--Russia ran into opposition from France, the United States and other Security Council members when it sought to ask the chief investigator probing the assassination of Lebanon's former prime minister for the names of 10 countries that have failed to cooperate with his commission.
Russia's U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said Tuesday it was the Security Council's responsibility to make sure that all countries cooperate with the investigation into Rafik Hariri's assassination. But France, the U.S., Britain and others defended the position of chief investigator Serge Brammertz, who does not want to disclose the names at this time, council diplomats said.
In his fourth report to the council on Dec. 16, Brammertz said Syria's cooperation with his investigators "remains timely and efficient" though he criticized 10 other countries - which he did not name - for failing to respond to 22 requests from his International Independent Investigation Commission.
A report last year by Brammertz's predecessor implicated Syrian and Lebanese intelligence services in the Feb. 14, 2005, bomb blast that killed Hariri and 22 others in central Beirut, and every report to the council has addressed Syria's cooperation. Four pro-Syrian Lebanese generals have been under arrest for 16 months accused of involvement in Hariri's murder.
Speaking to reporters on Dec. 18, Brammertz said he had been asked several times about disclosing the names of the 10 countries, and "we do not intend to do so."
"It's so far a bilateral issue between the commission and those countries," he said. "If this cooperation will not improve in the future, I will mention those countries to the secretary-general, but so far I have not any intention to mention the names of those countries."
Churkin said Russia decided in light of Brammertz' "rather strong" statement to ask him for the names. After initial opposition to that proposal, he said Russia put forward a compromise which was to have the Security Council president - Churkin in January - write a letter to Brammertz asking him "to be more specific the next time he reports to the council in March" on countries that are not complying.
Syria's U.N. Ambassador Bashar Ja'afari on Tuesday strongly backed the Russian initiative and named France as the country blocking the compromise.
But acting U.S. ambassador Alejandro Wolff said the U.S. and others also opposed the Russian move.
"We don't think this is the right way to go," Wolff said, stressing that the United States has "tremendous confidence" in Brammertz "and always will be guided by his view of what will help him most - and many members in the council shared that view."
France argued that if Brammertz wants the council to take action, he can ask members at any time, but the council should not interfere until he asks for assistance, a view backed by the U.S., Britain and others, council diplomats said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the consultations were closed.
Asked whether he had checked with Brammertz, Churkin said he had not.
"Mr. Brammertz has enough pressure on him without standing up to countries who are not willing to fully cooperate with him for whatever reason," Churkin said. "Those may be technical reasons. Those may be not technical reasons."
"We are in no way trying to micromanage the process ... but he is not supposed to be in the business of enforcing the compliance of states with the requirements of Security Council resolutions," Churkin said.
Russia traditionally opposes the naming and shaming of countries, but Churkin said that if the council focuses "so hard" on one country - Syria - "why should we disregard completely or even not want to know what those countries are?"
Syria's Ja'afari said "the Russian initiative goes ahead with the principle of seeking the truth."
"The Russian initiative is against singling out a country for political purposes," he said. "It goes toward knowing exactly and precisely those who have cooperated, and those who have not."
Late Tuesday, Churkin said, "I think we're very close to a kind of compromise solution on this one."
"One delegation will be contemplating its position ... and we'll also be trying to think of a way to come to a specific outcome in order to move this issue forward," he said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)