Chapter VII of the United Nations Charters gives the Security Council the power to intervene militarily in a country placed under its purview, which practically means to virtually abolish the independence of the country in question, or to place a moratorium on its sovereignty as its gives a foreign body powers that supersede those of the country's own government. Iraq provides a good example of the implications of Chapter VII, and it remains lacking in independence as long as it is under the purview of this chapter. In his speech at the sixty-fifth session of the UN General Assembly, President Jalal Talabani focused on the situation in Iraq, pledging to do everything that is needed, including addressing the pending issues with Kuwait, to get out from under Chapter VII that "legitimizes" the U.S military presence, and leaves Iraq's accumulating oil revenues, worth hundreds of billions of dollars, under the control of the occupying country, i.e. the United States. Lebanon, in turn, is under Chapter VII. However, this was done by its own choice, and it concerns one specific issue, which is the Special Tribunal for Lebanon that was mentioned by UNSC resolution 1664, and established by the Security Council on 30/5/2007 through UNSC resolution 1757. This tribunal was officially inaugurated on 1/3/2009, an important date since the United Nations, in 2005, had designated an official as the Commissioner of the UN International Independent Investigation Commission, starting with the German national Detlev Mehlis, and then the Belgian national Serge Brammertz and currently, the Canadian Daniel Bellemare. While the tribunal's work often saw some irregularities, especially during Mehlis's work in the beginning, this does not invalidate the Lebanese people's right to know the truth and bring the perpetrators to justice. The names of the investigators are known to all the Lebanese. However, I want to add here a tidbit that I know through my experience at the United Nations and my annual visits to the organization's headquarters in New York: Prior to the official establishment of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, the investigator's task was to gather information and hand it over to the Secretary-General, who in turn would submit it to the Security Council. This means that Bellemare alone can act as the prosecutor and issue the tribunal's indictment. Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah rejected an international tribunal under Chapter IV since day one, and the conduct of the investigator Mehlis only reinforced his doubts and concerns. Mehlis garnered in Lebanon prominence that he never had at the United Nations, where he was an employee without an office or an assistant, and was subsequently given a small office (that did not last at any rate). I have elaborations on the following details from my friend Samir Sanbar, the former United Nations Assistant Secretary-General for Public Information, with whom I went over some of the information available to me. In short, Mehlis “got too big for his boots" as they say, as he heard the Lebanese cheering for him whenever he entered a restaurant or saw T-shirts that said "I love Mehlis". He made accusations against senior Lebanese and Syrian officials, which raised the suspicions of the Secretary-General Kofi Anan. The latter called on him to always provide evidence for his accusations, to which Mehlis often replied with something along the lines of “do not worry”. I believe that Samir Sanbar also recalls that Annan frequently told Mehlis to “be careful”. Mehlis resigned in the end, most likely because the Secretary-General “did not take him seriously”. Mehlis had leaked names and sidestepped the Secretary-General when he spoke directly to the members of the Security Council. The last thing I remember, along with Samir Sanbar, from the days of Detlev Mehlis, is one given Friday as he was at the UN headquarters, asking the UN to fax President Bashar al-Assad to notify him of Mehlis's desire to interrogate Syrian officials. The political affairs office declined to do by his request. However, he insisted, and so they sent him a secretary with the fax number in order for him to send whatever he wanted, but in his name and not on behalf of the General Secretariat. The day ended with Mehlis wanting a Limousine to take him to the airport. However, he was told that the United Nations did not have any cars, to which he protested, because in Lebanon, he used to move around in a convoy of ten or 15 cars. He was then forced to drag his suitcase from the thirty-seventh floor where the offices of political administration are located, into the street to look for a taxi at six in the evening, or at rush hour, to take him to the airport. Perhaps Mehlis had good intentions, but he did not conduct himself in the same faith. This has only increased the suspicions of Hezbollah regarding a tribunal under Chapter VII. After him, Brammertz and Bellemare acted in a manner that was altogether different. I refuse to have my country under Chapter VII for any reason. However, I insist that the Lebanese case is limited to the tribunal, while in Iraq, it involves the entire country, and I even consider Iraq to be colonized until further time when it will be released from the slavery of Chapter VII. Thus, Hezbollah's objection to the powers vested in the Tribunal is correct. However, this does not justify threatening the security of the whole country, or asking the impossible, i.e. to abolish the tribunal. A Prime Minister was assassinated and followed by some of the most prominent figures of the country. In truth, a resolution issued by the Security Council cannot be withdrawn. American troops in South Korea still wear their blue berets as international soldiers, to this very day, 60 years after the resolution was issued, following the withdrawal of the Soviet delegate from the meeting of the Security Council in anger. I say if Hezbollah is innocent, then it has nothing to fear. The indictment, as its name implies, is not a conviction at all, and may well be dismissed by the judges for the slightest doubt. Here, doubt works in favor of the defendant, because it means there is a lack of evidence. [email protected]
