Close Menu
    Facebook Instagram LinkedIn
    • العربية (Arabic)
    • English
    • Français (French)
    Facebook Instagram LinkedIn
    Middle East Transparent
    • Home
    • Categories
      1. Headlines
      2. Features
      3. Commentary
      4. Magazine
      Featured
      Headlines Saad Azhari

      Facts and Myths in the Lebanese Financial Crisis

      Recent
      9 July 2025

      Facts and Myths in the Lebanese Financial Crisis

      6 July 2025

      A New Palestinian Offer for Peace With Israel

      3 July 2025

      Why al-Sharaa’s success in Syria is good for Israel and the US

    • Contact us
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • العربية (Arabic)
    • English
    • Français (French)
    Middle East Transparent
    You are at:Home»Manipulation mars the Hariri tribunal

    Manipulation mars the Hariri tribunal

    0
    By Michael Young on 3 September 2009 Uncategorized

    We’ve reached the point where we can assume that virtually everything currently being said about the Special Tribunal for Lebanon dealing with Rafik Hariri’s assassination is manipulation. That includes the statements last week by the former head of the General Security directorate, Jamil al-Sayyed, the former parliamentarian Nasser Kandil, the former minister Wi’am Wahhab, and various pro-Syrian Lebanese mouthpieces, not to mention Syria’s own foreign minister, Walid al-Moallem.

    In his press conference on Sunday, Sayyed stated that Hariri had been killed three times: on the day of his assassination; when the four generals, including himself, were arrested; and when they were released. But it’s Syria and its followers who this year have tried three times to kill the Hariri tribunal: after the generals were released, when the opposition falsely described this as a declaration of innocence; when someone leaked selective information to Der Spiegel, which published a flawed account of the Hariri assassination suggesting it was mainly a Hizbullah operation; and this past week, when Syrian and pro-Syrian figures and media made a concerted effort to discredit the tribunal, declaring its work “politicized.”

    The Syrians continue to concentrate their forces against the conclusions reached by Detlev Mehlis, the first commissioner of the United Nations team conducting the Hariri investigation. It’s not difficult to see why: Mehlis was the only one of the three commissioners who began cornering the culprits. Since then, neither of his successors, Serge Brammertz or Daniel Bellemare, has distanced himself from Mehlis’ broad findings. Had they done so, this would have been difficult to conceal even in their exceedingly terse reports. That is why a Syrian priority is to smear the German judge, even as Syria’s peons have now started biting at Bellemare, whom Wahhab affirmed is dying of cancer.

    The misinformation surrounding the tribunal forced its spokeswoman, Radhia Achouri, to issue a statement last week saying that speculation about when the body would accuse suspects was unfounded. “There is no set deadline for an indictment,” she said, adding “but this does not at all mean that the prosecutor does not see a need to inform the Lebanese public on whether there is one or not.” It’s a pleasure to know that Bellemare will inform us of something, since we don’t even know what ailment he has been suffering from for the past two months, though some leaked information and an educated guess suggest it is not cancer.

    For all the talk of indictments coming soon, Achouri made it indirectly clear that Bellemare just doesn’t have enough yet to accuse anyone. This may be obvious, however repeated enough times it sounds remarkable when we realize that the Hariri investigation began four years ago. A tribunal source admitted to me this past summer that the investigation was “a tough, tough one.” Did this mean there might in fact be no indictment at all? “Theoretically yes,” the person answered, “yet we are optimistic enough to think that this is not a likely scenario.”

    However, the prosecutor continues to leave important questions unanswered. For example, Achouri has said that Bellemare no longer considers the so-called “crown witness,” Mohammad Zuheir al-Siddiq, of interest to his case. That’s a peculiar assertion. Recall that it was on the basis of Siddiq’s deposition, among other factors, that the four generals were arrested. Mehlis also felt he had enough to arrest Siddiq as a suspect. Therefore, does his now being off the hook mean the generals are innocent? Prosecution sources say no, that the generals may still be indicted, but that their release was necessary under by the tribunal’s rules. Had Bellemare kept them in preventive detention, he would have had 90 days to indict or declare them innocent. He did not have enough to indict, so he released them to avoid declaring them innocent.

    But back to Siddiq. The prosecution today says that it no longer considers him a suspect or a witness. However, if he gave false testimony, there must have been a reason for this. He could have been planted to mislead or discredit investigators, which begs the question as to who put him in such a position. There are also legal implications for lying under oath. Yet the tribunal has simply decided that Siddiq isn’t of value to its work anymore, case closed. How is that remotely explainable or credible?

    It is ambiguities like these that have allowed opponents of the tribunal to damage its credibility. Achouri has insisted several times that the tribunal is not “politicized.” Doubtless she’s right, but she’s also missing the point: What’s important is that it’s the others, those who want the tribunal to fail, who are playing politics – perpetually placing the institution on the defensive, seeking to tarnish its conclusions even before they come out. There is no sense being an ostrich on such matters. Punch the tribunal enough times and it will soon feel the pain – all the more so when it has no rejoinder in the way of solid evidence to indentify the guilty.

    The continued, coordinated denunciations of the tribunal by Syria and its Lebanese partisans are further evidence of who was behind the killing of Rafik Hariri. There never was anyone else, and United Nations investigators reached that conclusion long ago, which worries Damascus. But what worries those who want to see justice done is something else: Is the Hariri tribunal actually moving closer to punishing the criminals?

    Michael Young is opinion editor of THE DAILY STAR.

    Share. Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email WhatsApp Copy Link
    Previous ArticleMQM shifts blame for 1992 operation from military to Sharif
    Next Article Sri Lankan cricket team attack mystery deepens

    Comments are closed.

    RSS Recent post in french
    • Du Liban indépendant et de son « héritage syrien » (avec nouvelles cartes) 8 July 2025 Jack Keilo
    • Nouvelle approche des Forces Libanaises: Alliances ou Endiguement ? 5 July 2025 Kamal Richa
    • Ce que nous attendons de vous, Monsieur le Président 3 July 2025 Michel Hajji Georgiou
    • Il faut être pour Nétanyahou lorsqu’il affaiblit la menace iranienne ; et ardemment contre lui lorsqu’il détruit Gaza 1 July 2025 Denis Charbit
    • En Syrie, la mystérieuse disparition du corps de Hafez el-Assad 11 June 2025 Apolline Convain
    RSS Recent post in arabic
    • الانتخابات النيابية اللبنانية بين غياب مشروع الدولة ومتغيرات المشهد الإقليمي 10 July 2025 كمال ريشا
    • !ليس هذا الوقت المناسب للتساهل إزاء حزب الله.. أو إزاء بيروت 9 July 2025 ديفيد شينكر
    • خلافات “فتح” تُحبطُ خطة نزع سلاح المخيمات 9 July 2025 محمد داود العلي
    • الحقائق و”الأساطیر” في الأزمة المالیة اللبنانیة 9 July 2025 سعد أزهري
    • قاعدة نورخان الجوية وأهميتها لواشنطن 9 July 2025 د. عبدالله المدني
    26 February 2011

    Metransparent Preliminary Black List of Qaddafi’s Financial Aides Outside Libya

    6 December 2008

    Interview with Prof Hafiz Mohammad Saeed

    7 July 2009

    The messy state of the Hindu temples in Pakistan

    27 July 2009

    Sayed Mahmoud El Qemany Apeal to the World Conscience

    8 March 2022

    Russian Orthodox priests call for immediate end to war in Ukraine

    Recent Comments
    • Khaled Mahrouq on Why al-Sharaa’s success in Syria is good for Israel and the US
    • Edward Ziadeh on Why al-Sharaa’s success in Syria is good for Israel and the US
    • Giant Squirrel on Holier Than Thou: Politics and the Pulpit in America
    • Edward Ziadeh on As Church awaits a Conclave, President Trump puts up picture of himself as next Pope
    • Victoria Perea on As Church awaits a Conclave, President Trump puts up picture of himself as next Pope
    Donate
    Donate
    © 2025 Middle East Transparent

    Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.

    loader

    Inscrivez-vous à la newsletter

    En vous inscrivant, vous acceptez nos conditions et notre politique de confidentialité.

    loader

    Subscribe to updates

    By signing up, you agree to our terms privacy policy agreement.

    loader

    اشترك في التحديثات

    بالتسجيل، فإنك توافق على شروطنا واتفاقية سياسة الخصوصية الخاصة بنا.