Analyses place Lebanon between a security breakdown and a political deal in the wake of the report of Canadian television network CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation), which claimed to reveal documents from the UN Investigation Commission into the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafic Hariri, having reached the conclusion that members of Hezbollah had been behind the assassination which took place in 2005 and led to the death of an additional 22 people. The CBC report addresses the process of execution and does not touch upon who was responsible for taking the decision to carry it out. It may seem that the report condemns Hezbollah alone, yet the fact of the matter is that it condemns the second head of the investigation, Belgian Commissioner Serge Brammertz , who had discovered the Hezbollah element in the assassination but had “lost” the relevant documents which had been delivered to the commission by Internal Security Forces (ISF) Captain Wissam Eid, who was later assassinated in 2008. Brammertz today holds a high-ranking position as Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, and had spent two years, from January 2006 to January 2008, being silent about what he was doing when heading the UN commission in charge of investigating the Hariri assassination. The CBC report reveals new elements about Brammertz's role which UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon should examine carefully. Indeed, Brammertz failed to safeguard the investigation and to protect witnesses, and the decisions he made or his “negligence” regarding the documents may call for a lawsuit being filed against him, because what he did may have contributed to the killing of the man who had actually conducted the investigation, while Brammertz, by negligence or purposely, buried the evidence. The least that Ban Ki-moon should do is start an internal investigation into Serge Brammertz, in order to understand how it might be conceivable for the head of a UN investigation to “neglect”, “lose”, “forget” or “overlook” a report held by the commission for a year and a half. Moreover, the Secretary-General should call for an internal investigation of the UN over the leaking of documents that belong to the investigation. It is not sufficient to denounce and lay the blame on the media for obtaining these documents. What is required is for the current head of the investigation since 2008 and the General Prosecutor of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL), Canadian Daniel Bellemare, to be held to account, because the documents were leaked during their mandate. Just as importantly, Bellemare is today required to stop playing the same game adopted by Serge Brammertz of hiding behind the secrecy of the investigation in order to refrain from clarifying its developments. Today, Daniel Bellemare bears the moral responsibility of telling the Lebanese people what he holds, instead of tampering with their emotions, their security and their future. Indeed, if he truly intends to issue an indictment against one or eight individuals, let him clearly say that he has resolved to do so and when. If he truly has witnesses, a case and evidence that would allow him to prosecute before the STL, he must tell the Lebanese and the United Nations that he is ready for such a task. Indeed, there are those who believe that Bellemare's bankruptcy in this respect has led him to play the game of secrecy, and that he will not issue any indictments, because the UN investigation has failed to work quickly and diligently, wasting around 5 years at the hands of two unprofessional men: Brammertz and Bellemare. Yet on the other hand, there are those from among Security Council members who say that Daniel Bellemare is ready to issue the preliminary indictment, one step at a time, and that he has told major countries at the Security Council that he is resolved to move forward by accusing members of Hezbollah towards revealing everything that took place in the case of the Hariri assassination and in that of the other assassinations, which the investigation has proven to be connected. Which then is the real Bellemare? Perhaps this question is not as important as the questions that currently stand about the formulas of the political deal or security breakdown after the CBC report. Below is an overview of what is taking place in the corridors of the United Nations and of the capitals of the countries concerned. The clearest of stances is that no one really knows what will happen at the security level if indictments are issued, or what will happen in the framework of political deals being discussed locally, regionally and internationally. The five permanent members of the Security Council stand at an equal distance from the Special Tribunal to try those involved in the Hariri assassination. The United States, Russia, China, Britain and France will not abandon the STL through a Security Council Resolution, which means that there is absolutely no way to annul the STL. And these countries will not openly enter as parties to any local or regional deals that would make them seem as if bidding or compromising on justice. France is the country that is most confused, due to the fact that President Nicolas Sarkozy is waging a battle against the diplomatic team in his government because of the STL. He is personally part to the political bargains going through Damascus and Doha, while the Foreign Ministry feels ashamed and concerned as it watches France getting confused and backing away from its traditions and its principles when it comes to its relationship with Lebanon. French diplomats, in Paris as at the United Nations, are trying to elude reproach and blame by pointing to the “weakness” of the Barack Obama Administration and its waning resolve to seriously deal with the issue of Lebanon. They also point to the “dispersal” of Sunni leadership in the Arab World. They say that the lack of available options to “counter” threats of driving Lebanon towards a civil war if indictments are issued against Hezbollah is making France unable to deal with the next step. The reason is that Sarkozy refuses to address an important element in the equation, which is Damascus, for his own reasons, which may be connected to his special relationship with Doha. The British are pretending to be certain that there is no need to worry about a security breakdown resulting from the indictment. They say that the information they hold from intelligence and diplomacy indicates that Hezbollah will not implement its security threats and will not drive the country to confrontation for several reasons – some connected to Iran and some to Israel, as well as some that concern the reasons and the grounds for Hezbollah incriminating itself before being incriminated by the CBC report or by the STL. They are of the opinion that everyone will retreat into a kind of “status quo”, and that regional and international sorting out of the relationship between Iran and the international community, between Iran and Israel, between Syria and Iran, or between Saudi Arabia and Iran, is not yet complete. The British have decided to move forward with the wager on creating a rift in the relationship between Syria and Iran, and they look exclusively to Hezbollah in this relationship, with its notable implications and corollaries with Israel. Britain thus predicts calm, if not a deal being struck. The Russians consider that a certain party, a certain country or a certain group, wants to thwart the issuing of the indictment, and this from their point of view explains the appearance of the CBC report. Indeed, publicly condemning Hezbollah in the media and public opinion by way of the CBC report aims at preventing it being condemned at the STL in The Hague. Some Russians suggest that “they” – without naming them – sought by such a leak to obstruct the progress towards a trial that may lead to years of hearings, as well as to other individuals being tried, not only members of Hezbollah. “They”, in Russia's thinking, are from within the Barack Obama Administration, regardless of the fact that the person who appears to be behind the leaks is most likely one of the investigators, having lost patience at Daniel Bellemare's procrastination and pretense at behaving professionally, knowing that he has spent two years threatening to resign at times, ill at times, and suggesting that indictments will be issued at others. The investigator in question is from among those who worked with Serge Brammertz and witnessed the extent of his laxity and neglect of the investigation, being exclusively concerned with himself with the aim of being promoted bureaucratically, while at the same time neglecting to carry out the tasks entrusted to him by the man who recommended him, i.e. the first investigator, Detlev Mehlis. Indeed, what was mentioned in the CBC report about the telephone communications network and its ties to people in the government was mentioned in Detlev Mehlis's first report, including the cell of eight people that was monitoring Hariri's movements. This was in 2005, and what Mehlis's report had essentially relied on were those telephone communications, as mentioned in his report. However, returning to the major powers, China has no core concern with the STL, Lebanon or the regional relationships concerned with the assassination. The United States, of course, is at the forefront not of clarity, but of obscurity, in spite of its recent statements and its announcement over funding the STL. There is a general impression that the US Administration wants to incriminate Hezbollah and remove suspicion and accusations from Syria. However, there is also talk of “factions” within the US Administration that seek dialogue with Iran by accusing Hezbollah. Such dialogue, as usual, comprises two aspects, that of the carrot and that of the stick. However, the stick would not come through what is held by the STL, but would rather be connected to what is held by US intelligence – in the sense that what was leaked to the CBC is only a sample of what US intelligence holds. Consequently, either cooperation, dialogue and engagement will take place, not at the Lebanese level, but rather at the nuclear and regional levels, or else the information held by intelligence agencies will find its way to Daniel Bellemare, allowing him to truly issue meaningful indictments. A noteworthy question is: why has Hezbollah taken the initiative to condemn itself before the STL condemns it? Those well-informed about the internal structure of the party say that there is battle taking place between the Syrian side and the Iranian side within Hezbollah – and this is perhaps the most important battle, one that should be closely examined. Will there be a political deal or a security breakdown? Of course the prime moral responsibility falls on Lebanese leaderships, and in particular on Hezbollah. Yet the moral responsibility also falls to the same extent on the United Nations and on Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who should hold to account two men who have driven Lebanon to the edge of the abyss. And between the two, from the US Administration in Washington to the political leadership in Damascus to mediators from Ankara to Riyadh to Doha, moral responsibility requires the “political deal” to last more than a few days. Indeed, the Lebanese have become emotionally drained. They are as much victims and martyrs as a man named Wissam Eid.
