iloubnan.info : From a legal point of view, do you share the reservations expressed regarding the adoption of the international court by the Security Council?
Ghassan Moukheiber: I fully support the international court as the means to establish justice and to put an end to the reign of terror, unpunished assassinations and political murders that have shaken the Lebanese people and jeopardized the country’s security. It is of the utmost importance that Lebanon attains a level of stability both on the security and political fronts, in addition to the independence and sovereignty this country deserves. Justice must be served with regards to the assassination of Rafic Hariri, Bassel Fleyhan, their companions and the entire series of crimes and terrorist attacks that followed. I also hope that international justice will take its course pertaining to matters that still await investigation; in particular the case of the Lebanese people reported missing in Syrian prisons and that of the war crimes committed by Israel against Lebanon.
From a political standpoint, what is the impact of such a resolution on the image of Lebanon and its institutions?
It is unfortunate that the constitutional institutions could not endorse the court themselves. This was due to well-known constitutional and political reasons.
Today, I hope to see the Lebanese people turning the page on their differences regarding the adoption of the special international court in order to concentrate their efforts on what is likely to guarantee impartiality and the reign of justice which every Lebanese longs for. I also hope to see them working on reinstituting their constitutional bodies and consolidating the national political union that has considerably weakened.
Now that the Security Council has adopted the international court (making it no longer a debatable issue), can one hope to see the establishment of a national union? If so, what will be the determining factor of such a development in the relations between the different parties?
Currently, we are witnessing the beginning of a serious dialogue between Lebanese politicians and concerned foreign diplomatic representatives which gives hope to the creation of a government of national union by way of enlarging the current one. It is a peremptory necessity in order to manage the interim until the forthcoming presidential elections in November. The Lebanese people and various political factions have gone beyond political differences to become primarily preoccupied with the security issues which are weighing very heavily on the country. This need for safety has obliged everyone to come together regarding the various political decisions that will definitely need to be taken in the future; especially in an attempt to capitalize on the unified position taken in support of the Lebanese army in its commendable battle against the terrorism that was likely to take root in Lebanon. The same obstacles that are creating the current crisis should encourage the various Lebanese factions to get along because it has become clear to everyone that no community and no political faction can independently impose its will on others. The cost of an institutional collapse is so high that the parties find themselves compelled to compromise and communicate with each other, if not stimulated by national and patriotic awareness, then at least by mere desperation. In fact, dialogue and compromise constitute the essence of the consensus-based democratic system which makes up the Lebanese democracy.
The establishment of a government of national unity will be one of these tests, the agreement on the election of the next president of the Republic will be another and so on…until all Lebanese parties regain the capacity and understanding of the culture of dialogue and consensus-based democracy in anticipation of the formation of a constitutional government, which is currently non-existent in Lebanon.
Are the current terrorist attacks and events of Nahr Al-Bared and Ain el-Hélwé linked to the dispute over the international court?
I am not in favor of establishing a link between the war against the terrorist movement called Fatah Al-Islam and the international court, as they are two distinct and separate issues. In other words, I am not convinced that this war could obstruct the creation of the court, nor can it hinder its activities since: on one hand, the UN has already adopted the Resolution and on the other hand, the start of the court’s activities is not expected before at least a year from now. The eradication of terrorism is a task that should be completed as soon as possible. It is a fact that the establishment of the court is not convenient to many local, regional (Syria in particular) and international parties. However, establishing too many links between events will only complicate the solution. The Lebanese people should set their priorities straight: the eradication of Fatah al-Islam (and any other similar organization regardless of its location) should be our primary concern at the moment. With regards to the establishment of the court issue, a large majority endorses the resolution including the parliamentary Bloc of Reform and Change that I am part of. It is essential that justice be served independent of any political consideration. Then, a serious and continuous dialogue should be initiated to reach a consensus on each of the numerous other issues which the Lebanese people are in disagreement over. In addition to a power struggle, Lebanon is also experiencing a crisis in its system. The constitutional institutions as well as the decision-making mechanisms are held up or ineffective. Accordingly, beyond finding short-term solutions to the crisis, a gigantic duty awaits the Lebanese people of all communities and political parties…that of building a State. This challenge should not divert our attention from completing the mission that is critical to the stabilization of the country. This institutional “reinstatement” is a condition for stability, peace and security that we have long neglected. A condition that members of the Majority, as well as a large number of figures associated with the Opposition who have been part of the governing majority for a long period of time, thought they could cast aside.
Would the Lebanese parties reaching an agreement by June 10 annul Resolution 1757?
I encourage all the Lebanese parties to initiate a dialogue and reach a compromise which will result in stabilizing the dramatic situation that the country is going through by means of a government of national unity that would run the interim until the presidential elections. The government will not deliberate again on UN resolution 1757 since it has been already adopted. This ten day deadline is actually intended only to save the face of the countries represented within the Security Council (Russia and China in particular), which were in favor of the establishment of the court as a consensual decision.
According to you, is there a risk of the State collapsing namely through the failure to meet the presidential deadline and the creation of a constitutional vacuum?
The risks are enormous. This is why we need to double our efforts in order to maintain safety. It is therefore vital to maintain unfailing support to the Lebanese army in its battle against terrorism. I believe that the Lebanese parliamentarians will reach a consensus on a president and a government of national unity constitutes the necessary positive foundation to this effect. The concerns pertaining to the eventuality of an institutional vacuum or division, are so real that all political parties can’t help but realize that a dictatorship of imposed will is a mere illusion.
What do you think of the US military aid to the Lebanese army?
Any assistance to the Lebanese army is welcome regardless of its source.
The majority and the world were late in giving the army the sufficient means and gear to ensure the safety of its territory. It is high time to do so. This constitutes the foundations of the State’s establishment and of competent defense institutions which should have the exclusive authority to resort to the use of armed forces in its territory without any exception…be it inside or outside the Palestinian camps.
