Hazem al-Amin

It is necessary to remain cautious regarding the cabinet’s reaction to the promulgation of the indictment, but this does not prevent one from expressing preliminary satisfaction vis-à-vis the early indications of the position. Prime Minister Najib Mikati’s statement that the accused are innocent until proven guilty reveals an underlying acknowledgment of the indictment and a readiness to cooperate with it. Indeed, the presumption of innocence presupposes the respect of judicial procedures, which puts the March 14 coalition in front of a new challenge that forces it to abide by a certain level of pragmatism in which its leaders are apparently deficient. This is proven by the fact that the statement of the March 14 General Secretariat was devoid of any indication regarding the positive substance of Mikati’s words.

Caution is certainly necessary and Hezbollah’s silence certainly indicates that it is up to something. It is also necessary to wait for the actual steps subsequent to the indictment with regard to carrying out the arrest warrants, but this calls for a long course of careful follow-up. In other words, the cabinet should be given praise when due and criticized when due. Mikati should be told that we will stand by him when he abides [by the indictment] and that we will confront him when he does not. The course is still long and it is still too early to declare war on the cabinet.

Following up on the case requires a proportionate amount of perseverance and not taking hasty positions. This is how one should counter Hezbollah’s silence, Mikati’s Taqiyya (dissimilation of one’s true beliefs) and Speaker Nabih Berri’s eloquence. In a little while, the cabinet will be asked about the arrest warrants and its efforts to comply with the Special Tribunal for Lebanon’s decisions. A little later, trials will probably start and will predictably be held in absentia. We should keep an eye on the performance of attorneys and the alternate cases, the respect of which - the STL believes – will add credibility to the tribunal’s action, such as the case filed by Major General Jamil As-Sayyed. Other indictments will probably be issued – and this is even likely – and they will probably include new names. All this process does not call for fast reactions.

Michel Aoun will likely be used in the plan to lure the March 14 coalition into tilting at windmills, and Wiam Wahhab will very likely come up with stances and statements, the kind of which we have grown accustomed to. However, the case is about something else entirely. It is about Hezbollah’s silence, Mikati’s Taqiyya and Jamil As-Sayyed’s alternate action.

The latest statement of the March 14 coalition does not allude that the confrontation is planned to be a long-term thing and that there is a wish to pitting the Special Tribunal for Lebanon in a confrontation against the cabinet.
The process is a long one and it should be a long-term thing as well. A judicial procedure cannot be transformed into a political condemnation before sentences are issued.

Meanwhile, political enmity should be dissociated from the STL’s course as it is necessary to find other headlines for the confrontation. These may include illegitimate weapons, the relation with Syria and the international community and daily livelihood issues.
The cabinet’s cooperation with the Special Tribunal for Lebanon should abide by a different logic than daily bickering.