Politics cannot be excluded from tribunal

The Lebanese political scene is tied to the Special Tribunal for Lebanon that was recently inaugurated to prosecute the suspected killers of Lebanon's former prime minister Rafik Hariri and was the main issue of political dispute over the past four years. This came amid warnings that the detailed procedures of the court may deepen national divisions.

The first warning came after Lebanese Justice Minister Ebrahim Najjar presented to the government a memorandum of understanding between the international tribunal and the Lebanese judiciary, which triggered a new political crisis.

The latest impasse reminds us of the previous crisis that led to the withdrawal of five opposition ministers from the former government of Fouad Siniora - a step that was followed by a public strike, and then the May 7 clashes which were described by many as a mini-civil war.

The situation so far appears to be under control. Yet if the parliamentary majority keeps insisting on either going ahead with the proposed memorandum or using it as a tool of political blackmail in its political struggle against the opposition parties, then the situation could spin out of control and may bring Lebanon back to square one.

This is because the memo's interpretation could very well be used as a tool to target a certain party from among Lebanese rivals. The point of dispute lies with clause No. 3 of the memo, which is seen by the opposition as a violation of Lebanese sovereignty.

Under this clause, the chief prosecutor of the new tribunal, Daniel Bellemare and his team, are allowed to summon anyone and go to any place inside Lebanon without pre-approval - whether it is the headquarters of the Lebanese president or the defence ministry.

The question that arises here is what would happen if leaders of Hezbollah or any of its allies are summoned and their centres are targeted by the tribunal?

On the other hand, the memo is seen as routine by the Western-backed ruling majority because Lebanon is committed to cooperation with the tribunal, which was created according to UN resolution 1757.

This raises questions about why the memo is required at this time, and why it is required to be signed with Lebanon in particular, and not other countries that were mentioned in the regular reports by the three investigators, who chaired the international investigation committee into the Hariri murder, such as Syria, France or the US.

Many new dangers will appear with the progress of the tribunal's work. And regardless of the principles of justice, trying criminals and the need to know the truth, politics has its own calculations that can cut deep into the ethnic and sectarian structure of Lebanon.

The tribunal will add to the already prevailing divisions in the country. Lebanon's stability and peaceful co-existence will be affected if the court continues in its current course despite the ambiguity about the suspects and witnesses.

Lebanon will be passing through a critical test until the day when the court issues its ruling, most probably not before six years, as announced by UN officials and according to previous experience of trials related to Congo, Bosnia and Kosovo.

The challenge facing Lebanon today is that of the parliamentary elections due to be held in June, the second to take place since the assassination of Hariri.

The assassination had a major impact on the previous elections, as it was used to mobilise the masses, who felt they were targeted by the murder of Hariri.

Now, the court is bringing the crime back under the spotlight in Lebanon to remobilise the public.

When the court's opening press conference was held in The Hague, celebratory gun shots were heard all over Beirut.

Undoubtedly, the memo and the ongoing controversy surrounding the case of the four generals who remain in custody will be used to influence the public, and moving these officers to The Hague will affect both sides of the political conflict.

These circumstances will dominate the election campaign in Lebanon, which is expected to witness tough competition in many districts.

The decisions made by the court's judges, whether they intended to or not, will directly affect the elections in Lebanon, especially given that there is an impression in Lebanon that one side supports the tribunal while the other is against it. It is obvious that the court's work will be politicised for many reasons. The victim of the crime is a politician, the suspects have a political background and accusations were made on political grounds, while the crime itself had many political implications, such as altering international relations between Syria on one side and many Arab and other countries on the other.

Furthermore, the current openness of some Arab and non-Arab countries towards Syria may impact the judicial procedure.

In short, politics cannot be excluded from the Hariri tribunal, which marks a new chapter in the history of Lebanon. Yet, the question remains as to whether the tribunal is good or bad.

Husam Kanafani is a Lebanese journalist based in Beirut.