Friday, 18 February 2005View: Abdulwahab Badrakhan
The worst thing in Rafiq Al Hariri's assassination is that it was a pre-declared crime. Nevertheless, the criminal was left free to choose the time, place, and method. There are other declared crimes, with the names of their victims, but do not include the criminals' names. They have been in the conscience of the Lebanese for a while. They knew that they will be done at any moment. Nothing stops them from doing it again.
Rafiq Al Hariri was the staunchest opponent, even if he did not classify himself as one of them. He was the staunchest supporter, even if he was outside their ranks. The killers did not recognize him this middle position. Perhaps, targeting him is the mistake that will be the beginning of their end. They committed a crime as big as a nation, to kill this nation, to destroy a dream and hope made by Rafiq Al Hariri, on which the country survived with a mixture of amiable gratitude, bitter criticism, and attentive suspicion. These are the characteristics of the peaceful struggle; the grateful are not content, the suspicious are not relaxed, and the critics do not reach the extent of killing. This is a country that lived a harsh civil war and does not want it to come back.
Who protects the growing peaceful opposition? This is the big question that was raised by the crime in Lebanon, especially in the international community, after the street became insecure for any opponent; that is, if he were safe at his own home. Monday's crime exposed the false security formed after the war ended. Everyone knows that the regime created the forces of destruction in tandem with the security forces, and that it wants to oblige the latter to serve the former. Equal to this is for the "awakening cells" to tarnish the reputation of the security forces that are supposed to belong to a state. Monday's crime was a clear message to all the opposition members; nothing protects them on the inside - no law, no parliament, no constitution, and no ethics.
It is painful not to be able to depend on the state and its security. It is painful for the inside to give such savage proof to its high capability to kill in such a way, to harm and destroy to this extent. Hariri provided himself with the best possible protection, and as such, one could imagine how the people feel after this crime. In an instant, they remembered the civil war's anxiety and obsessions. They no longer have a spec of trust in what is called the state, which they were happy with its revival from the rubble of war and militias' abuse, and here it is heading once more towards being the victim of a different bias. Whenever the government in Lebanon failed to include supporters and opponents together, it puts itself on the road of collapse.
It a big and dangerous responsibility for the authority to be accused of Monday's crime. If it was not responsible for what happened, then who is? During the Civil War, there was no government, and there was nobody responsible. What is the excuse today?
It is a major disappointment that this government not to be welcome at Hariri's funeral; only friends from the inside and outside are welcome to offer their condolences. This was an unquestionable spontaneous and natural stance, what made it more justifiable is that the government officials who came forward with the preliminary results of the investigation seemed as if they want to record the crime in an appendix related to the Civil War's crimes, the architects and perpetrators of which were impossible to expose. They seemed like those who want to sell the story of the bearded man in the videotape, with what it includes of intentional fabrications.
Nevertheless, watch out; there might be an intention to create an Iraqi situation, and even a Zarkawi-like situation, with a fundamental difference, in which the so-called government is accused of many things in Baghdad; however, it is not suspected of sponsoring such terrorism, or using it in the internal struggle. From here, the scenario, which the government in Lebanon seems to adopt, is more rash and unsuccessful in appeasing the citizens who can no longer be deceived.
If this government has nothing to hide or fear, why does it refuse an international investigation? If there was nothing to tarnish independence and sovereignty in Lebanon, or honesty and transparency, or the judiciary's freedom, why do the intervening foreign gentlemen not trust the internal investigation? This is a prevalent and ever-present dilemma since the "return" of government; as if the Civil War did not end, but its chaos relocated to the state with extracted independence, violated sovereignty, and succumbing to its troubled guardians.
If United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559 really aims at restoring Lebanese independence and sovereignty, it is heading towards inflaming war in Lebanon, and Rafiq Al Hariri might be its first early victim. The makers of this decision should recognize that the battle began with Monday's crime, if they are not serious, and if they have hidden goals, it is unnecessary to deceive the Lebanese people again. Let them know that the Lebanese are fed up with all these "brotherly" and non-brotherly foreign interventions as long as they are deal with their country as an arena for their struggles. |
Friday, 18 February 2005
Al Hayat
|
|
