BEIRUT, Lebanon, June 1 (UPI) -- An international criminal tribunal set up to prosecute the killers of Lebanon's former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri is a step forward for the Middle East, which has been long plagued by political assassinations.
The United Nations Security Council voted Wednesday for its creation, more than two years after the assassination of Hariri in a massive bomb explosion that hit his convoy in Beirut on Feb. 14, 2005.
"It is a big step. ... Definitely we are in a new era, a new phase," Paul Salem, director of the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut, told United Press International. "The tribunal has become a reality."
Lebanon, which has been hit by a series of bombings and other assassinations since the killing of Hariri and 20 other people in the 2005 explosion, has been in a deep political crisis with its main political powers split over the tribunal and power-sharing as well as relations with Syria and the United States.
It is too soon to predict if the newly adopted Security Council Resolution 1757 that provides for the creation of the tribunal will further deepen divisions in Lebanon or pave the way for dialogue among the conflicting Lebanese parties -- encouraged by the fresh Iran-U.S. dialogue that took place in Baghdad earlier this week.
To parliamentarian Boutros Harb, who is also a member of the pro-government March 14 Movement, the tribunal "is a precedent" and "the first to be established in a region full of disturbances and events."
"It creates a new reality which would contribute in an indirect way into forcing the regimes (in the region) to respect human rights and protect citizens' rights more," Harb, a lawyer, told UPI. "It also ushers an inclination by the international community and the U.N to support people of the world even by expanding the role of the U.N. in settling conflicts and struggles."
He highlighted the importance the resolution as "it solves a dangerous case which endangered Lebanon's stability and future."
The resolution, which will take effect on June 10, was approved 10 to 0 by the 15-member Security Council. China, Russia, Qatar, Indonesia and South Africa abstained from voting, saying it bypassed the Lebanese parliament's constitutional role in approving international agreements and would further deepen divisions in Lebanon and threaten its shaky stability.
"They expressed fears but they (Russia and China) did not use the veto," Harb noted. Now that the tribunal has become a reality, he believes that "the concerned parties will deal with the new situation in a realistic way."
"Realism requires these parties and countries to deal (with the tribunal) in such a way to avoid further complications and instead help ease the ongoing struggle," he said.
He was mainly referring to Syria, which was accused by many Lebanese of being behind Hariri's killing and many other assassination and bombings in Lebanon -- a charge repeatedly denied by Damascus. The international investigation into Hariri's assassination hinted at the possible involvement of some Syrian and Lebanese officers in the killing, which occurred while Lebanon was still under Syria's control and before Damascus was forced to withdraw its troops from its neighboring tiny Arab country.
Syria has insisted it was cooperating with the international investigation but was not concerned with the international tribunal. Its allies in Lebanon, including Hezbollah, maintained Hariri's killers should be punished but fell short of supporting such an international tribunal on the basis it violates Lebanon's sovereignty. Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, who heads the pro-Syrian Amal movement, refused to convene a session of parliament to allow a vote, prompting Prime Minister Fouad Siniora to issue a direct appeal to the Security Council to establish the court.
Dr. Shafik al-Masri, legal expert and professor of international law at the American University of Beirut, said the international tribunal "is the judicial mechanism that could disclose the criminals who carried out the terrorist act against Hariri and the other crimes."
Masri explained that the tribunal was adopted under Chapter Seven, "meaning that all countries should abide by the court requirements."
Noting that the international investigation carried out by Belgian Serge Brammertz referred to Hariri's killing as a politically motivated terrorist act, he explained that the court was set "to try and then punish those who committed terrorist crimes on the basis that terrorism constitutes a threat to international peace and security."
"It is the first court to try and convict terrorist crimes at the legal level," he told UPI. "It is the first judicial mechanism of international character in the Middle East region where political assassinations, suppression, collective arrest and violations of essential rights" are widespread.
But is such a tribunal restricted to revealing the truth about Hariri's assassination?
According to Salem, "It also has political goals beyond disclosing the killers. ... It's always politics. China and Russia, which abstained from the vote, have different interests and playing their cards to counterbalance the U.S. (in the region)."
He said the international tribunal, which somewhat resembles the Security Council measures recently adopted against Iran because of its nuclear program, was "an international mechanism to put pressures on certain regimes in the region."
After the first round of a U.S.-Iran dialogue, which he described as "a turning point" in Iraq, and the adoption of the international court, Salem believes the "(U.S.) talking to Syria becomes easier."
The court is thus "a red line" and was "the last card" for bargaining.
Syria, Salem said, "will have to deal with this reality and will have to find a way to talk with the U.S., the West and Saudi Arabia" in order to stabilize Lebanon, pave the way for the formation of a new government and the election of a new president as well as discussing the fate of Hezbollah's weapons.
The formation of the international tribunal boosted hopes that Hariri's killers will be held accountable, but many remain skeptical about learning the truth.
It will probably takes years, according to Harb.
Yet the nagging question remains: Would such a tribunal deter any future political assassinations in the Middle East?
