Fri, 17 December 2010
Raghida Dergham

New York-Two noteworthy reports were published over the past two weeks by each of the International Crisis Group (ICG) and the International Peace Institute (IPI). Both deserve our attention and close examination of the meaning of the message each of them bears. Under the title “Trial by Fire: The Politics of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon”, the ICG report recommends bargains to leap over justice under the pretext of preserving stability in Lebanon. It suggests “compromises” and “scenarios” aimed at evasion, within the Security Council and through a trial in absentia of those against whom the indictment would be issued on charges of having been actively involved in the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafic Hariri and his 22 companions. This report, which was edited and prepared primarily by Peter Harling, who is permanently based in Damascus and holds the position of “Director of the Iraq, Syria and Lebanon Project” in the International Crisis Group, mentions Syria more than it does Lebanon, and makes use of an unacceptable sectarian and provocative language.

For example, in pointing to Hezbollah’s threats of undermining stability in case an indictment is issued against party members, the report states that “the Shiite movement, having warned of catastrophe, can ill afford to do nothing”, and that current Prime Minister Saad Hariri, “having taken the helm of the Sunni community, would pay a heavy price for turning his back on the murder of the man who was both his father and that community’s pre-eminent leader”. The ICG thus recommends a “compromise that [would] distanc[e] Lebanon somewhat from the STL”, and striking bargains at the expense of justice and the STL, on the basis that the goal is “to ensure the Lebanese people do not emerge [from this crisis] as the biggest losers of all”, in the words of Robert Malley, the ICG Program Director for the Middle East and North Africa. Yet the majority of the Lebanese people, according to the IPI report, which includes a public opinion poll, support the STL in a proportion of three fifths, with 60 percent of the Lebanese wanting to move forward towards justice regardless of the consequences. Also noteworthy is the fact that, according to the poll, 40 percent of Lebanon’s Shiites support moving forward towards justice.

This bears important indications, since such a rate of support for the Special Tribunal and for justice comes in spite of Hezbollah’s opposition to the STL and its threats against the tribunal’s decisions. Also noteworthy is what the poll revealed in terms of criticism by the Lebanese of Hezbollah’s attacks against the STL being coupled with disappointment and a loss of illusions of trust in the Lebanese government, as the poll reflected dissatisfaction with current Prime Minister Saad Hariri.

Indeed, despite the fact that 63 percent have a favorable opinion of him personally, only 36 percent say that he is doing a good job as Prime Minister, while the rest expressed dissatisfaction with his performance. If new elections were held today, the March 14 Alliance led by Saad Hariri would obtain a mere 29 percent of votes, according to the poll which was not limited to public opinion in Lebanon, but also included Palestine and Israel, in turn bringing noteworthy surprises. Most prominently, two thirds of Palestinians expressed their trust in both President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, not just in the West Bank but also in Gaza. The poll also showed that Palestinians were less pessimistic about their future than the Lebanese. Israelis have increased their approval of their Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the wake of the incident of humanitarian ships headed to Gaza, which brought international condemnation of Israel after civilians were killed on the ship which Israeli forces raided, killing 9 activists.

Also noteworthy is the fact that Israelis are opposed to the Arab Peace Initiative, which offers complete recognition and coexistence with Israel in exchange for its withdrawal from occupied territories on the basis of the 1967 borders, because most of them have not been informed of its content and do not know what it offers the Israelis, as was stated by Craig Charney, who supervised the Palestinian, Lebanese and Israeli poll, and found many surprises. Yet the greater surprise came in the form of the ICG report, due to its bias and its disparaging justice publicly and openly.

The new President of the International Crisis Group (ICG) is Canadian Louise Arbour, who had previously assumed the position of Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, to which she was succeeded by Serge Brammertz, who had previously headed the UN Investigation Commission into the assassination of Rafic Hariri. Arbour had also previously held the post of High Commissioner for Human Rights.

For Louise Arbour to approve of the report prepared by Peter Harling from Damascus, calling for submitting to Hezbollah’s threats under the pretext of concern to save Lebanon, in fact places Arbour under a microscope and focuses the spotlight of suspicion on her. Indeed, Arbour is supposed to be the first to raise the banner of international justice and the principle of non-impunity, and yet she in this report ratifies undermining both the banner and the principle. Her only justification would be that there is no other choice.

Who placed the International Crisis Group in charge of the world’s future? And who appointed it to speak in the name of the peoples it is analyzing, or at least to ignore what 60 percent of them want?

The ICG has several times in the past few years suffered from reports that were characterized by bias in favor of Hamas at the expense of the Palestinian Authority, in favor of Hezbollah at the expense of the Lebanese state, and in favor of Syria in a stereotypical fashion, the basic cause of which might be that Peter Harling is permanently based in Damascus, so that he may always inform us of his bias. This time Harling, as well as Malley and Arbour, have gone beyond bias and published a report that is prejudiced and biased, but also one that ignores the Lebanese – or half of them at least – and insults them.

Indeed, even in its introduction, the report deals with the events of May 7, 2008, when Hezbollah turned its weapons against the Lebanese interior and sought after military control of Beirut, as if they were merely another round of regular protests in the streets. That is a very dangerous misrepresentation, and it in fact represents falsification of history. Furthermore, the report is rife with a language used by the opposition in Lebanon, as it uses for example the expression “so-called majority”, exactly as prescribed by the language of Hezbollah and other opposition leaders.

The report’s executive summary contains infringements that should be rejected by someone like Louise Arbour in particular. Indeed, the STL has not issued any rulings, neither condemning Hezbollah nor clearing Syria. Yet the report reads like a Damascus press statement, as it includes anticipation of STL decisions and what are nearly accusations of treason against those who had in the past accused Syria.

The report claims, for example, that Lebanese and international players reached “consensus (…) on a narrowly defined judicial process, resting on the assumption that Syria was guilty, and that its guilt could and would be established beyond doubt”, reaching the conclusion that “to invest such high expectations in the investigation was both slightly unfair and exceedingly optimistic. They rested on a series of misjudgements – about the effective balance of power in Lebanon [and] about Syria’s ability to withstand pressure and isolation”… The report then adds that “Syria withdrew from Lebanon and, far from being ostracised, was being courted again, notably by France but also, to a lesser degree, the US”.

Such talk anticipates the STL, and is political par excellence. The worst part of it is what the ICG recommends in terms of submitting to Hezbollah’s threats with astounding bargains that consecrate impunity, obstruct justice and intimate to the local players ideas and suggestions for manipulating the work of the STL and driving Lebanon into the meanders of undermining its sovereignty, its self-respect and its future at the Security Council.

Indeed, the Harling-Malley report approved by Louise Arbour spoke of “a deal [that] would not be neat, and (…) would not be pretty”, on the basis of scenarios of the following type: “Lebanon could request the Security Council to halt STL activities once indictments [against Hezbollah members] have been issued, for the sake of domestic stability”; or “[Lebanon] could condition further cooperation with the tribunal on its taking certain steps”, such as “[for example] foregoing the option of trials in absentia [and] agreeing to look into the so-called false witnesses affair”; or Lebanon could continue its cooperation with the STL, coupled with “express[ing] serious doubts as to the basis of its findings”, provided this is “accompanied by a collective agreement to allow the prime minister to govern more effectively – something he systematically has been prevented from doing”.

This is a political discourse which the International Crisis Group was entrusted to voice from where Peter Harling is based, while it would have been more useful for it to preserve some of its credibility and not to go into the meanders of politicians’ bargains at the expense of justice and of the principle of ending impunity, which by the way meets with the report’s sarcasm.

Indeed, what is required is not allowing Saad Hariri to govern more effectively in exchange for aborting justice and accountability for political assassinations – assassinations that will be repeated if are struck the bargains promoted by the ICG, which pretended to forget that 34 political assassinations had taken place in Lebanon since the assassination of Rafic Hariri, not just the one that targeted the current Prime Minister’s father. Indeed, the proposed formula holds an insult not only to the Lebanese, international justice, the Security Council and the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, but also to Saad Hariri himself as well as to the martyrs who fell in political assassinations.

Let Louise Arbour then take note of the results of the poll conducted by the International Peace Institute, so that she may truly get to know what revolves in the minds of the Lebanese, before assuming, along with her associates, that the interest of stability in Lebanon resides in submitting to Hezbollah’s threats, or employing the methods of Syrian skill with means and ways of submitting and subjecting. Indeed, Damascus behaves as is in its interest, but there is great suspicion today over what interest the ICG holds in promoting scenarios of leaping over justice, the STL and the principle of non-impunity.