MEHLIS J - 18

Analysis
The UN-Security Council Meeting on October 31st 2005
and the unanimous Adoption of Resolution 1636
(by Rainer Rupp, M.A.)

Totally ignoring that Monday’s unanimous vote on resolution 1636 disguised considerable differences of approach among the key players, the reaction of the mainstream media around the world was, that the unanimity of the vote showed “how isolated” Damascus had become. The fact that all Anglo-American threats which had been included in the original draft had been dropped from the adopted version of the resolution, which in itself constituted an major setback for Washington, went widely unnoticed. But the differences in approach concerning the resolution were not only visible along the usual tectonic policy lines between the so called “West” and China and Russia but they also extend into the prima facie “united front” of the United States and France, who had jointly sponsored resolution 1636. Thus, it was not only Russia, China, Algeria along with a number of other important non-Western nations, but also France who refused to go along with Washington’s desire to turn the resolution by means of economic and other sanctions into an instrument for “regime change” in Damascus.

By contrast to the statement by US-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who excelled last Monday with anti-Syrian slurs in the Security Council und in the press conference that followed, the French Minister of Foreign Affairs Philippe Douste-Blazy (whose boss, President Jacques Chirac, was a personal friend of Hariri) stressed, that the resolution “had only one aim — the whole truth about Rafik Hariri’s assassination, so that those responsible for it answered for their crime”. Although Mrs. Rice stressed in her speech that the US and the French “had the closest possible cooperation” Paris and Washington appear to have divergent purposes now.

This fundamental difference in approach between France and the US towards Syria was already highlighted last week by Laurent Mauriac who wrote in the French daily “Liberation” (Internet Version 10/26 2005) that despite the joint appearance of the US and French ambassadors to the presentation of the Mehlis-Report on October 27th in the Security Council “presenting an astonishing duettist number by speaking to journalists together a difference in their remarks was quickly felt”. Laurent Mauriac underlined that Bolton, appearing determined, asked for "a strong resolution from the Council reflecting a united opinion on the serious nature of this case and the importance of everyone cooperating” while La Sabliere, more qualified, insisted on "the lack of cooperation on the part of the Syrians” and that “the other Security Council countries, notably China and Russia, will still have to be convinced”. Moreover, according to the French, “the Franco-American draft resolution should not include any threat of sanctions”, a possibility that the UN Secretary General had opposed the day before. Finally Mauriac made clear that “the French government for its part would like to postpone the question of sanctions to 15th December.”

Against this background, the united Anglo-American-French front in the Security Council was not as strong as it appeared at first glance. And in order to avoid a defeat or a possible veto by Russia or China and instead win unanimous support the resolution had to be watered down considerably and all references to sanctions had to be dropped, although the direct threat of such sanctions had been the stated aim of the US and its rabid anti-Syrian ambassador to the United Nations, the formidable war-hawk John Bolton. The fact, that resolution 1636 does not include any direct threat, but only an implicit warning that the council "could consider further action" if Syria is found to be in non compliance by December 15th , constitutes for all practical purposes a political defeat for Washington.

If sanctions had been included in the resolution, there would have been an automaticity, giving Washington a “Security-Council-approved” handle to act unilaterally, in case Syria was not in full compliance. However, as has been demonstrated by the deadly years of the Iraq sanctions, “compliance” is a question of definition which in turn is shaped by the arbitrariness of US policy goals. This is why it is so important, that in the case of resolution 1636 the mention of sanctions has been completely avoided. Only the Security Council (and not the US on its own) can decide after the December 15th deadline what “further action” - if any - should be taken.

Despite its legal clarity Resolution 1636 is not, however, a guaranty, that the Bush-Administration will abide this time by international law and respect the unique role of the UN Security Council and refrain from unilateral action against Syria. In order to strengthen the case, that this resolution can not be used in any way as a legal cover by the US for unilateral action against Syria Celso Luiz Nunes Amorim, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Brazil, addressed this matter explicitly with an on-the-record statement during the meeting of the Security Council. After having noted, that Brazil maintained strong historical ties with both Syria and Lebanon Minister Amorim said he had voted in favour of the resolution on the understanding “that any additional measures could only be taken on the basis of a collective assessment by Council members of the (Mehlis) Commission’s final conclusions”.

The Brazilian Minister for Foreign Affairs Amorim went on to stress, that Brazil considered that the references in the resolution to Chapter VII of the Charter “neither implied nor authorized the application of measures against Syria in the absence of a collective decision by the Council, based on careful evaluations of the facts.” He went on to say, that the present situation in the Middle East was marked by tension, on the one hand, and hopes for peace, on the other and that under such circumstances, the Council must be guided by a sense of balance and realism. According to Minister Amorim the Council must reconcile a firm determination to bring to justice those responsible for Hariri’s assassination with the pursuit of stability through institutional and political progress. While the Council needed to send a strong political message, he stressed that Brazil did “not favour hasty decisions that might lead to an undesirable escalation of the situation or further endanger stability in the region”.

Most important is that even US-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice acknowledged in her press conference immediately after the Security Council meeting that further action could only be decided by the Security Council and only after the Mehlis-Commission had finished its work by 15th December. Asked by a reporter, if this resolution was only one more attempt by the US to tighten the noose around the neck of yet another Arab country, Mrs. Rice replied: “This Chapter VII resolution is very explicit in what it means, which is that Syria must cooperate with the Mehlis-report (Commission), and then, if necessary, the Council can come back and consider other measures.” Thus, with respect to resolution 1636 Mrs. Rice did not even hint at a potential legal justification for future unilateral measures against Syria. Instead Mrs. Rice endorsed the position of the majority of the Council, namely that it is up to the Council to decide, what further action should be taken, if any.

Nevertheless, Mrs. Rice along with her British colleague Jack Straw made ominous references to the fact, that resolution 1636 was passed under Chapter VII of the UN-Charter which is entitled: “Action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression”. Indeed, Chapter VII provides the legal framework for the UN Security Council to adopt “further measures” such as sanctions. Article 39 states: “The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.”

Article 41 under Chapter VII clears the way for sanctions and article 42 for the use of military force. Article 41 stipulates, that “the Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.” Article 42 says: “Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.”

As pointed out already, nothing in resolution 1636 provides for any automaticity of sanctions or the use of force against Syria. Against this background the ominous tone of the Anglo-American references to Chapter VII under which resolution 1636 was passed can only be interpreted as political posturing. Firstly, because the fact that resolution 1636 had been defanged in the Council reflects a political defeat for the Anglo-American alliance which can not be admitted and therefore the references to the grave consequences of Chapter VII are designed to turn the toothless resolution 1636 in the eye of the public into a major political success. Secondly, by repeatedly stressing Chapter VII the Anglo-American alliance is playing on sensitive Arab perceptions about possible unilateral US-action thus increasing the pressure on the Syrian government while at the same time encouraging Syrian opposition forces at home and abroad.

While US-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is interested keep the political pressure against Syria up, recent developments suggest, that she is also against unilateral US-measures especially military action against Syria at a time, when the Bush administration is still widely isolated because of its arbitrary war of aggression against Iraq. Citing unnamed US government sources the US-News Magazine Newsweek reported early October, that during a high level Meeting held at the White House on October 1st Mrs. Rice successfully opposed Pentagon plans for military action against Syria, arguing that diplomatic isolation was a more effective approach to achieve regime change in Syria. In support of Mrs. Rice’s view, one unnamed intelligence official told the magazine that US pressure on the Syrian leadership could prove counter-productive and that Washington may be "radicalizing the country." This is why Mrs. Rice prefers a collective UN-approach against Syria, which would deflect from the fact, that the Washington continues its aggressive policy for the transformation of the “Greater Middle East”.

In a show of diplomacy that reflected the Bush administration’s efforts this year to consult more with partners, Mrs. Rice had crisscrossed Europe in mid October seeking to build a common front against Syria and Iran. In several one-on-one meetings with her colleagues Mrs. Rice tried to prepare the ground for concerted action at the Security Council on October 31st against Syria. After being publicly rebuffed by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on Iran on October 17th she obviously did not win the support she wanted on Syria either. Russia "is very reluctant to endorse any sanctions when it is unclear where they might lead in the future," commented Oxana Antoninka, a Russia expert at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a think tank in London. "Moscow wants to prevent the Security Council from becoming a weapon to punish regimes that could lead to unforeseen action such as military action."

Alluding to the unproven accusations against Syria in resolution 1636, taken straight from the interim Mehlis-Report, Sergey Lavrov, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation said in his statement to the press after the Council meeting, that the final version of the report was “of course not ideal” and he apologized for the resolution with the words: “No body is perfect”. He stresses never the less that Russia wanted “to strengthen the unity of the Council, but not at any price”. Consensus could only by found, because the sponsors of the resolution (USA, France and Britain) had taken on board suggestions “aimed at depoliticizing the resolution and removing from it unnecessary and ungrounded threats” and thereby “concentrating on the declared goal of the resolution” to get all countries “to cooperate fully” with the Mehlis-Commission. In this context he lauded the recent declaration of Syrian President Assad to this end. The charge by a journalist, that this resolution could further destabilize the Middle East Minister Lavrov rejected categorically, saying that is was the Russian Delegation which introduced the amendment to the draft resolution which states that: “Peace and stability must be maintained in the Middle East” and that “we all must act by peaceful methods and search peaceful solutions”.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs of China Li Zhaoxing also stressed in his statement to the Council, that his country had always held the view “that no wilful use or threat of sanctions should be allowed in international relations”. The use of sanctions could “only be authorized by the Council with prudence, in light of actual situations”. With reference to the anti-Syrian accusations in the Mehlis Report he underlined, that it was “still a preliminary report”, and that “there was no final conclusion”. Aimed at the US-draft, he added that under such circumstances, it was “inappropriate for the Council to prejudge the investigations outcome and threaten to impose sanctions”, especially as “this did not help with the settlement of the issue and would add new destabilizing factors to the already complex situation in the Middle East”. According to Minister Zhaoxing this was a “legitimate and reasonable concern of China, Islamic countries and many other nations”. He added that the Council should take “full consideration of the unique and complicated situation in the Middle East, and respect the sovereignty of those countries and the will of their people, so as to avoid causing new tension and turmoil in the region.

While all members of the Security supported the work of the Mehlis-Commission and demanded that those responsible for the Hariri-killing be found and judged, Denmark and the Philippines were siding in their statements closely with the aggressive Anglo-American position while Algeria, Brazil, Argentina and Benin shared the Russian and Chinese concern for a peaceful solution and stability in the Middle East. They also expressed their concern, that the Mehlis-investigation proceeded “with scientific exactness and impartiality” and avoid the presumption of guilt” as Algeria’s Foreign Minister Mohamed Bedjaoui declared. “The premature accusations of Syria contrasted”, he said, “with the treatment of non-Arab parties.” Trust must be now placed in the impartiality of the Commission, so that the Council’s action can be seen to be in the service of law and not in the pursuit of political purposes. The Council should not call for premature action or delve into the issue of terrorism, which should be dealt with in separate resolutions, alluding to the forthcoming Security Council resolution in the context of the Terje Roed-Larsen-Report, which is likely to put more pressure on Syria.

“Political elements that incriminated Syria without solid evidence had “harmed the consistency” of the original draft resolution, said Minister Bedjaoui of Algeria who was supported by Brazil’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Amorim who complained that the initial draft had gone “beyond the scope of the Commission’s report” including “language that did not ensured respect for the presumption of innocence”. He was joined by Cesar Mayoral, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Argentina who demanded, that the Council’s action must respect the principles of due process and presumption of innocence and avoid any reference to aspects outside the Commission’s mandate. In a clear criticism of the Anglo-American position Minister Amorim said, that he would not have been able to support the initial resolution “that sought to promote objectives other than those strictly related to the investigation of Rafik Hariri”. In the revised draft “a number of Brazil’s concerns had, however, been dealt with”. Foreign Minister Simon Bedehousse Idohou of Benin supported the creation of a committee to monitor the setting of sanctions on individuals requested by resolution 1636 in order to ensure “that imposition of such sanctions followed the procedures of the rule of law”.

Denmark and the Philippines, both members of the so called “Coalition of the Willing” with troops helping the US in its illegal occupation of Iraq, made it quite clear, that in the case of Syria they also stand firmly behind the United States. Per Stig Møller, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Denmark, said that the Mehlis-report had set out a “disturbing and compelling case” where “converging evidence” ... “seemed to suggest that there might have been a conspiracy among senior Syrian and Lebanese security officials behind the terrorist assassination of former Prime Minister Hariri. His delegation was “seriously concerned with the lack of substantive cooperation on the part of Syria”, said Mr. Møller who then said, that “Syria must realize that it constituted a real danger for peace in the region by being involved in arming terrorist groups, and by not securing its borders with Iraq.” Alberto G. Romulo, Foreign Affairs Secretary of the Philippines accused the Syrian authorities of cooperating “only in form, and not in substance” and that several Syrian officials had “tried to give false or inaccurate information” to the Mehlis-Commission.

The Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Greece, Tanzania, Romania and Japan tried in their statements to steer a middle road between the Anglo-American position on the one side and the Russian-Chinese on the other side, stressing for instance the need to “ensure the fairness to the investigation, including due consideration of the presumption of innocence” (Japan) while at the same time pressing the Syrian Government to cooperate with the Mehlis-Commission.

This brings us to the reaction of Farouk al-Shara, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Syria. In his statement he correctly deplores, that resolution 1636 “repeated nearly verbatim the accusations against Syria” in the Mehlis-report, which reflects the old anti-Syrian bias of the German prosecutor and has conveniently forgotten the presumption of innocence. Minister al-Shara is right to complain about the reuse of the Mehlis-report’s unclear terminology in the resolution such as the Commission’s conclusions that, “given the infiltration of Lebanese institutions and society by the Syrian and Lebanese intelligence services working in tandem, it would be difficult to envisage a scenario whereby such a complex assassination plot could have been carried out without their knowledge, and that there is probable cause to believe that the decision to assassinate former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri could not have been taken without the approval of top-ranked Syrian security officials”.

On the basis of the twisted logic displayed in the Mehlis-report Minister al-Shara made the valid point to the Council that given the fact, that the US or UK societies and institutions are heavily infiltrated by US or UK intelligence services, “it was impossible to envisage the non-involvement of the (US or UK) security services in the terrorist attacks in the United States or in Britain”. Terrorists would be “the first to delight in such a presumption”, Minister al-Shara said, drawing vicious reactions from British Foreign Minister Jack Straw and subsequently from US-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Secretary Rice denounced Minister al-Shara’s comment as an “unbelievable tirade”, a “tirade with the most bizarre connections” and it was this verbal exasperation by Mrs. Rice which was picked up in Western papers to disqualify the Syrian Ministers statement to the Council.

A “most bizarre” statement was indeed made that day but it did not come from the Syrian Minister of Foreign Affairs but Mrs. Rice herself. Speaking to the press after the Council meeting she displayed the height of hypocrisy when she expressed her outrage about “what this Mehlis-Report is potentially about” namely “that the security forces of one state participating in the assassination of the prime minister of another state”. This would be a horrible scenario indeed, if it turned out to be true. But it is not for the Secretary of State of the United States to express indignation, especially as US-American security forces have on numerous occasions participated in assassinations of the prime ministers of other states.

Indeed, the well known US-American hypocrisy is evident in throughout the US-drafted resolution 1636 even in its revised and adopted form. Para 12 for instance calls on Syria “not to interfere in Lebanese domestic affairs, either directly or indirectly, and refrain from any attempt aimed at destabilizing Lebanon, and respect scrupulously the sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity and political independence of this country”. The main problem with this statement is that it has has been drafted by the same nation which did not care in the least about the sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity and political independence of another Arab country, namely Iraq. And this is not finished.

On October 16th Condoleezza Rice explained on NBC News “Meet the Press” with Tim Russert, that after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 the White House took the decision to transform the Middle East along US-American visions. In June 2002 John Bolton, now US-Ambassador to the United Nations and then Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control and Disarmament extended the List of the three „Axis of Evil“ countries Iraq, Iran and North Korea to include Syria, Libya and Cuba. Last month US-President George Bush accused Syria to be „an ally of Islamic terrorists". He was applauded by the Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom, who egged Washington on claiming in an Interview, that Syria „was up to its neck“ involved in terrorisms, „not only against Israel but also against coalition forces in Iraq“. Therefore regime change in Damascus was „in the interest of the whole World”, said Mr. Shalom.

By mid October the New York Time referring to sources in the US-intelligence community reported that the Pentagon was already running covert operations in Syria. A few day later Condoleezza Rice mentioned casually in a press briefing, that the US might stay another 10 years in Iraq and in the mean time might wage war against Iran and Syria. Where is the concern for the “sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity and political independence” of states, which the US stressed in the resolution adopted by the UN-Security Council last Monday in New York.
Strasbourg., November 2005