MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Marianna Belenkaya) - The UN-Lebanese agreement to establish an international tribunal for Lebanon will enter into force on June 10 in accordance with UN Security Resolution 1757 of May 30.
Russia abstained from voting on this issue but did not veto the resolution.
This dubious situation makes many Arabs wonder what Moscow really thinks about what is unofficially called the Hariri tribunal, because it has been set up primarily to investigate the murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Is Russia indifferent to the situation in Lebanon?
Sources have told RIA Novosti that his son and now leader of the parliamentary majority, Saad Hariri, thanked those who voted for the resolution and who abstained. But Russia was still expected to do more than that - its political elite were on good terms with Rafik Hariri. But could it have done more?
The tribunal cannot be viewed out of the context of other events in the Middle East. Russia's position on the issue rests on its assessment of the regional situation and relations with all regional players, primarily Syria, which some Lebanese policymakers are accusing of complicity in the crime.
During the past two years, Moscow has done much to persuade Damascus not to refuse to cooperate with the international Hariri commission, although sometimes its work was too politicized. No doubt, this attitude saved the region from new crises along the lines of those in Iraq and Iran and, what is still worse, armed conflicts. The adoption of the new UN Security Council resolution, based on Chapter 7 of the UN Charter (dealing with threats to peace) contains a not-so-subtle reference to Damascus, and this will not help reduce tensions in the region.
When the resolution was discussed, Russian Ambassador to the UN Vitaly Churkin noted that there were only two precedents for similar resolutions - when the Security Council set up an international tribunal on the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda to investigate genocide and crimes against humanity. "These crimes are not within the jurisdiction of the Lebanese tribunal. There are no grounds for making a reference to Chapter 7 in this resolution," Churkin said. He added that "the pattern chosen by the co-authors is dubious from the viewpoint of international law - an agreement between two subjects - the UN and Lebanon - by definition cannot be enforced by one side's decision." In other words, it is necessary to secure the official consent of Lebanese policymakers to the establishment of the tribunal.
Moscow has suggested waiting until the Lebanese opposition and the ruling coalition, known as March 14, come to terms on this issue. But the impatient Lebanese government complained that nothing had been done on the issue for half a year and asked the United Nations to set up the tribunal without the approval of parliament. This is what happened, making some Lebanese happy and frustrating others. So, the tribunal is not likely to unite Lebanese society in the future if it hasn't done so before now. Moreover, as long as the tribunal remains a political rather than judicial instrument, its chances of success in investigating Hariri's murder will be almost non-existent. The investigation, however, is supposed to be its goal. Or does it have some other aim?
Russia objects not to the tribunal as such but to individual legal nuances. On the eve of the voting in the Security Council, sources told RIA Novosti that in any case the tribunal was still necessary, and Russia did not argue against this but merely objected to its being used as an instrument for settling scores. It goes without saying that Russia does not like the fact that its amendments and remarks were not taken into account in the final resolution. Meanwhile, all members of the Security Council, Russia included, are responsible for the situation in the region. If tensions start escalating, they will have to deal with the consequences together.
It would seem that the Iraqi situation has shown more than once that it is necessary to display caution in international decision-making and take into account the opinions of all interested parties. Maybe Moscow's partners on the Security Council do not want to learn from their past mistakes, but at least Russia will not be directly to blame for their future ones.
Nonetheless, the decision to set up the tribunal has been made. Now all those whom it concerns are obliged to cooperate with the UN on this issue. There can be no objections on the grounds that the resolution is unjustified. Lebanon and the region in general have enough trouble without that. On their part, Russian diplomats and policymakers have promised to prevent the new body from becoming politicized. The fact that Moscow has abstained from voting does not mean that it intends to ignore the resolution.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
