Questions remain about the fate of Syria and Lahoud after UN probe
By Zeina Abu Rizk
The Daily Star
Those who expected Detlev Mehlis to make major revelations yesterday may have been deceived. But perhaps what transpired in the concise statement by the head of the UN Committee investigating former Premier Rafik Hariri's assassination, and in the following question and answer session with reporters was more enlightening than what was actually said.
Mehlis' assertions his committee was here to unveil the truth about Hariri's assassination and that the detainees were suspected of plotting in Hariri's assassination, sounded like an indication the four former heads of security apparatuses in detention since Tuesday were likely to be officially arrested.
Indeed, information spread on Thursday evening the Lebanese judiciary had followed Mehlis' recommendation - although unbinding - to issue arrest warrants against Raymond Azar, Ali Hajj, Mustafa Hamdan and Jamil Sayyed.
In the meantime, a series of significant developments seem worth highlighting. One of those is the early release of former MP Nasser Qandil, who was amongst the fifth detainees first arrested Tuesday. Although Mehlis made it clear that all suspects do not need to be detained, and that the release of a suspect does not make him less of a suspect, freeing a political figure strongly associated with Syria and once referred to as Damascus' spokesman in Lebanon, could not pass unnoticed.
Coupled with Mehlis' comments about Syrian witnesses as opposed to Syrian suspects, which the committee needs to interrogate, Qandil's release seemed to confirm this impression. Involving Syria at this point may force the international committee to take measures it is still not ready to adopt, especially if the implication of Syrian suspects were to lead to the Syrian leadership itself. More time might be required before taking investigations a step further in this direction.
Although Damocles' sword is still hanging above Hizbullah's head, the Tuesday arrests have led to a substantial decline of support for the theory that Hizbullah could be implicated in the crime. None of the four suspects has direct affiliations with Hizbullah; even rumors the booby-trapped truck that killed Hariri had been prepared in one of the southern suburbs' neighborhood - a Hizbullah stronghold - have substantially diminished over the past days.
The main question is about Lahoud's fate following the investigations, especially now that Mustafa Hamdan, his close aid, has been officially arrested. Even if Lahoud continues to say he will assume his presidential responsibilities until the end of his mandate, it seems difficult to believe he would be able to do so.
Yesterday's cancellation of the Cabinet meeting is an indication that, in such an atmosphere, cohabitation with the president has become almost impossible. Holding government meetings in Baabda in particular seemed unrealistic; if Lahoud persists on staying in office, political life could be seriously paralyzed.
One of Lahoud's main defenders to date has been Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Butros Sfeir. This time, however, the Prelate may have a different approach to an issue in which the judiciary should have the final say. The September Maronite Bishops statement to be issued Wednesday will reveal Bkirki's position with respect to this issue.
The bottom line is Bkirki will not defend anyone found guilty by the judiciary, nor would it interfere in issues falling under the judiciary's jurisdiction.
Also, rumors Druze leader Walid Jumblatt will start examining the possibilities of electing a new president with other senior leaders have started spreading.
But on the other hand, arresting former heads of security apparatuses known for their close ties with Syria leaves little ambiguity as to the political side standing behind those suspects, if they were to be convicted. If they really planned Hariri's assassination, they could not have done so unless a higher authority brought them together, considering the security leaders were not always friendly and would have probably needed a higher power to bring them together.
Therefore, the theory these Lebanese suspects may eventually serve as scapegoats to the Hariri affair if Syria manages to conclude a "deal" with the international community - which is what Damascus is supposedly trying to do through political and diplomatic channels, while delaying its authorization for interviews with the Syrian witnesses - does not sound convincing.
The Daily Star
Those who expected Detlev Mehlis to make major revelations yesterday may have been deceived. But perhaps what transpired in the concise statement by the head of the UN Committee investigating former Premier Rafik Hariri's assassination, and in the following question and answer session with reporters was more enlightening than what was actually said.
Mehlis' assertions his committee was here to unveil the truth about Hariri's assassination and that the detainees were suspected of plotting in Hariri's assassination, sounded like an indication the four former heads of security apparatuses in detention since Tuesday were likely to be officially arrested.
Indeed, information spread on Thursday evening the Lebanese judiciary had followed Mehlis' recommendation - although unbinding - to issue arrest warrants against Raymond Azar, Ali Hajj, Mustafa Hamdan and Jamil Sayyed.
In the meantime, a series of significant developments seem worth highlighting. One of those is the early release of former MP Nasser Qandil, who was amongst the fifth detainees first arrested Tuesday. Although Mehlis made it clear that all suspects do not need to be detained, and that the release of a suspect does not make him less of a suspect, freeing a political figure strongly associated with Syria and once referred to as Damascus' spokesman in Lebanon, could not pass unnoticed.
Coupled with Mehlis' comments about Syrian witnesses as opposed to Syrian suspects, which the committee needs to interrogate, Qandil's release seemed to confirm this impression. Involving Syria at this point may force the international committee to take measures it is still not ready to adopt, especially if the implication of Syrian suspects were to lead to the Syrian leadership itself. More time might be required before taking investigations a step further in this direction.
Although Damocles' sword is still hanging above Hizbullah's head, the Tuesday arrests have led to a substantial decline of support for the theory that Hizbullah could be implicated in the crime. None of the four suspects has direct affiliations with Hizbullah; even rumors the booby-trapped truck that killed Hariri had been prepared in one of the southern suburbs' neighborhood - a Hizbullah stronghold - have substantially diminished over the past days.
The main question is about Lahoud's fate following the investigations, especially now that Mustafa Hamdan, his close aid, has been officially arrested. Even if Lahoud continues to say he will assume his presidential responsibilities until the end of his mandate, it seems difficult to believe he would be able to do so.
Yesterday's cancellation of the Cabinet meeting is an indication that, in such an atmosphere, cohabitation with the president has become almost impossible. Holding government meetings in Baabda in particular seemed unrealistic; if Lahoud persists on staying in office, political life could be seriously paralyzed.
One of Lahoud's main defenders to date has been Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Butros Sfeir. This time, however, the Prelate may have a different approach to an issue in which the judiciary should have the final say. The September Maronite Bishops statement to be issued Wednesday will reveal Bkirki's position with respect to this issue.
The bottom line is Bkirki will not defend anyone found guilty by the judiciary, nor would it interfere in issues falling under the judiciary's jurisdiction.
Also, rumors Druze leader Walid Jumblatt will start examining the possibilities of electing a new president with other senior leaders have started spreading.
But on the other hand, arresting former heads of security apparatuses known for their close ties with Syria leaves little ambiguity as to the political side standing behind those suspects, if they were to be convicted. If they really planned Hariri's assassination, they could not have done so unless a higher authority brought them together, considering the security leaders were not always friendly and would have probably needed a higher power to bring them together.
Therefore, the theory these Lebanese suspects may eventually serve as scapegoats to the Hariri affair if Syria manages to conclude a "deal" with the international community - which is what Damascus is supposedly trying to do through political and diplomatic channels, while delaying its authorization for interviews with the Syrian witnesses - does not sound convincing.
<< Home