With its focus on Pakistan and Afghanistan, the US administration leaves the impression that it is solely concerned at this stage by the spread of the Taliban in both countries, relegating every other issue to its "later" list. The problem with this is that those benefiting from the US absence or absenteeism - regardless of whether it is temporary or transitional - are engaging in measures through which they aim at times to fill the vacuum and at others to strengthen their positions. Most prominent among these is Iran. Indeed, Tehran exports its hegemony by every means, including through next month's important elections in Lebanon, through disturbances in Bahrain and Egypt, and through Sudan. Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir benefits from the US distraction and the toned down discourse adopted by those who were quite stringent towards him before coming to power, such as US Ambassador with cabinet rank Susan Rice. Thus he now believes that he has triumphed over the International Criminal Court (ICC), which had demanded his arrest on charges of war crimes. Similarly, Hezbollah in Lebanon believes the time to be right for launching a campaign against the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, as it believes the Security Council to be obstructed or tied up, with the Secretary General reluctant to escalate matters. Such a conclusion is also partly a result of Hezbollah estimating that the Obama administration's priority is to repair relations with Iran and Syria, and that the tribunal is a secondary matter that can be bartered over. In turn, Israel is relying on the United Nations and the United States to slacken when it comes to holding it accountable before justice for its use of white phosphorus against civilians taking shelter at a UN school in Gaza, or for the other violations which it denies committing, while hiding behind its accusations against Hamas of having started hostilities. Indeed, Israel (Netanyahu-Lieberman) benefits from any other priority on the list of the US and the international community, because it wants to evade the two-state solution. It does this sometimes by a novelty, such as asking President Barack Obama to solve the nuclear problem with Iran first, before the Palestinian issue can be addressed, and at other times by a deception such as improving the economic situation of the Palestinians as a key to self-rule and later perhaps a state. Barack Obama may be in the midst of putting down the final features of his strategy towards the Middle East, both in the nuclear issue and in that of peace, and he is right to give strict priority to the financial crisis and then to Pakistan and Afghanistan. The impression others have may be completely wrong. Yet impression is a force on the field, especially in a period of elections or transition. It is thus necessary for the US President to publicly assert yet again the broad lines of US foreign policy, to ensure that the local scene is not left exposed to trespasses against justice and the judiciary, on the basis of false trust based on fabricating the impression that the United States and Europe want reconciliation and mutual embrace, at the expense of impunity. One might say that it would be a mistake for a superpower like the United States to stoop to the level of fighting small battles such as those being waged by certain parties in Lebanon against the Special Tribunal and the Lebanese Judiciary, for preemptively detaining four generals upon the request of the UN Investigation Commission. However, there is another opinion on the matter, stating that the impression left by the Obama administration that it does not mind any result produced by the Lebanese elections on the 7th of next month, including a Hezbollah victory, and the fact that Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah has launched a campaign against the Special Tribunal without any complaints from Washington, promote rumors that favor Hezbollah's side and present Iran with the first gift from the Obama administration in Lebanon. If this is not intentional - and it most likely is not intentional at all - the Obama administration must clarify the matter one way or another. Indeed, it is true that Lebanon is a small country and merely a dot on the map of the world, yet this country is the key to moderation and democracy in the Middle East. Delivering it into Iran's hands through Hezbollah would represent a major US concession to the so-called side of "defiance" and would send a dangerous message to the ranks of moderation in the region, one that could lead to dangerous results for vital US interests in the Middle East. Indeed, trust in the United States has repeatedly suffered one setback after another, under the successive administrations, and is today going through the most difficult of phases, considering the advances made by the Obama administration towards states and parties that targeted US interests, infiltrated fighters to kill Americans in Iraq and resisted democracy and justice. The impression left by such advances is that the Obama administration views some of the friends of the United States as friends of the Bush administration, of which it is vigorously cleansing itself. This in turn encourages another impression - one that is active and influential on the field regardless of whether it is true or false, which is that the old friends of the United States have been defeated, and that the victor is the Iranian era in the region, as the American age comes to an end, which means the victory of extremism and the subsiding of moderation. Hence, the US President must be careful not to reward Iran before even negotiating with it in this phase which Tehran's leaders will make sure to prolong in order to benefit from it, both at the nuclear level and at that of hegemony. Indeed, former president George Bush presented Iran with a gift: that of a tamed Iraq, one free of Saddam Hussein, ripe for a civil war and governed by men loyal to Tehran. He has done this through his war in Iraq under the pretext of preventing it from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. He also gave Iran the gift of getting rid of the Taliban in Afghanistan, as he gave Israel the gift of Iraq being marginalized on the strategic map and undermined in the regional balance of power. And here is Israel as well, behaving with the arrogance of the unafraid and the superior which - despite that fact - lies in the mentality of fear and besiegement. The US administration is not required to respond to fear mongering campaigns wherever they may be, but there are cases that require it to show resolve, to block the path of those who promote their assumptions in light of the absence of its resolve. One such example is that of Sudan, in the wake of the ICC issuing an arrest warrant for President Omar Al-Bashir on charges of committing war crimes in Darfur. Indeed, Bashir wagered on the weakness of the US, and he arrogantly disregards the ICC's decision for three reasons: the weakness of the US commitment to anything issued by the ICC - of which the United States is not a member; China's determination - being Sudan's oil ally - to prevent attempts to prosecute the Sudanese President and Washington's submission to such determination, although it was the UN Security Council that entrusted the ICC with the Darfur issue and became responsible for its decisions; and the fact that the Obama administration is busy adapting to power and submitting to the de facto situation in the name of negotiations. The end result is that President Al-Bashir feels that he has triumphed over the ICC, because Security Council members, specifically the United States, France and Britain, have retreated before his defiance of them, as he traveled from an Arab Summit to an African capital, gathering support. Perhaps efforts behind the scenes aiming at a "white" coup against the Sudanese President without toppling his regime are still at work, but the US and French envoys to Darfur are nearly recycling the kind of diplomacy led by Doha. This has encouraged disdaining the ICC and the UN Security Council, and also the promises made by Barack Obama and his team before coming to power. It is unacceptable before such a reality for the US administration to hide behind its shadow and that of others. Indeed, the Sudanese issue requires closely examining the meaning and the depth of undermining international justice without any accountability, with the Security Council and its members conveying the impression that there is no other choice but to submit to the de facto situation. The danger such an impression would represent is beyond measure. The same applies to when the Security Council and the UN Secretary General submit to another de facto situation imposed by Israel to prevent holding it accountable for what it did in Gaza and which the Human Rights Committee considered to be a war crime: its use of white phosphorous against civilians. Indeed, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's behavior shows weakness and fear from the repercussions of the report prepared by a panel led by Ian Martin, which has investigated Israel's deliberate targeting of schools and UN locations under the pretext of Hamas hiding there, which the investigation has proven to be false. At first, Ban Ki-moon delayed submitting the report to the Security Council, then handed in only part of it, before announcing at a press conference that he would not approve a request to move forward with the investigation and call to account those who committed crimes against civilians. He did this in the name of "restoring balance" to a situation that lacks any form of balance. Indeed, the task of the commission put in charge of the investigation by Ban Ki-moon has been limited to investigating Israel's attacks against UN locations and property in Gaza. Thus there is no need for balance. These are attacks against the international organization's locations and property, not a report about what took place in the Gaza war between Israel and Hamas. Now the Arabs will move at the Security Council with the aim of having a resolution issued about Israel's violations against civilians and UN facilities in Gaza. This is a test for members of the Security Council - a test of their sense of responsibility and their concern for justice. Indeed, Israel must not remain above the law because this - among other reasons - weakens the pursuit of international justice. There is no need for the Secretary General to submit alongside the report to the Security Council a letter certifying that the report does not have the force of law, as this weakens accountability and the pursuit of justice. There is a feeling, or an impression, that behind international leniency with Sudan and silence over transgressions against the Special tribunal for Lebanon lies the fear of what the Gaza events require in terms of seriously holding Israel accountable for the atrocities it has committed. If this impression were to last, the United States will be among the first accused of having allowed impunity. Such an impression would have costly consequences for the United Nations and the United States. Once again, the power of impressions, or even of promoting assumptions, should not be underestimated, regardless of the extent to which an impression or assumption differs from reality or truth. The Special Tribunal for Lebanon has not yet issued a verdict, nor held a single court hearing. However, it merely issuing a legal opinion requiring the release of the four generals from preemptive arrest, after the Lebanese Judiciary handed in their case to the Special Tribunal - because of the lack of sufficient evidence at the present time to level official accusations against them in court - has triggered a violent campaign against the Lebanese Judiciary and the Special Tribunal. It is the duty of the Security Council to issue a statement asserting that it stands behind the Special Tribunal which it established by an official resolution, to inform all those concerned that it is forbidden to make light of the Special Tribunal. The erosion that the investigation underwent under Head of the UN Commission Judge Serge Brammertz has prolonged preemptive detention. This man spent years without achieving anything while bargaining over his next task. His successor Daniel Bellemare is now falling in a similar trap, as he pretends to be qualified to complete the task alone, at a time when he should get off his high horse and assign experts to be his partners or even his assistants in legal proceedings. Ban Ki-moon was daring in his report concerning Resolution 1559, when he condemned Hezbollah's expansion to conducting operations in Egypt to undermine its stability, and there is no need for him to elude his boldness. Indeed, Michael Williams, for instance, was not afraid when he played a role between Syria and Israel, including the element of Lebanon and Hezbollah between them. If he is fear-stricken now, let him run back home before he undermines the boldness to hold accountable and weakens the basis of justice. Indeed, fear mongering is a weapon, as are impressions, and both support each other at the expense of justice and truth. New York, Al-Hayat 08-05-2009
