On May 30, 2007, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1757 establishing an international tribunal to prosecute the killers of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Al-Hariri under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Al-Miqdad attacked the resolution and said that it would destroy stability in Lebanon. Two Syrian government dailies also sharply attacked the resolution, and wrote that it entails "great dangers" for Lebanon and may have "dangerous repercussions for Lebanese national unity." Both Al-Miqdad and the government press reiterated Syria's stance that the tribunal does not have jurisdiction over its citizens.

The following are excerpts from Al-Miqdad's statements and the Syrian government press:

Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister: "The International Tribunal Will Lead to the Destruction of Stability in Lebanon"

On June 1, 2007, Al-Thawra reported on a TV interview given by Faisal Al-Miqdad: "Al-Miqdad said that the government in Lebanon does not believe in its own legitimacy, and thus it turned to the UN to enforce security in Lebanon… 'The Lebanese government never hid [the fact] that it does not have faith in the Lebanese judges and judicial system… The Lebanese government is humiliating every Lebanese judge and citizen'. Al-Miqdad said that Resolution 1757 has no international legitimacy and no Lebanese legitimacy.

"Al-Miqdad emphasized that the goal in establishing the tribunal is to bring the last of the fortresses standing up to the U.S. down on its knees, and that such kinds of resolutions are ratified for the sake of the narrow, private interests of heads of state, even if this brings about the destruction of millions of people.

"He claimed that the timing [of the resolution] was connected to [the fact that] some of the heads of state were leaving office, and others were to do so soon. According to him, the thing that proves that this resolution [will have] repercussions is what Russia said: that this resolution damages the Security Council's reputation and will hurt developments in the region. Al-Miqdad noted that those who drew up the resolution are people known for their enmity towards Lebanon and the Arabs, and added that the international tribunal will lead to the destruction of stability in Lebanon.

"Al-Miqdad added: 'We in Syria think that this resolution has no legitimacy, and Syria obeys its own laws only. Syria, under the leadership of President Assad, will foil these plans, whose goal is to impose the New Middle East [plan]. Syria, under the leadership of President Assad, is capable of foiling additional plots that are being weaved against the region."[1]

Tishreen: "If There Are Any Syrian Suspects… They Will Be Tried According to Syrian Law"

The Syrian government daily Tishreen published a front-page editorial along the same lines: "The Security Council's resolution to establish an international tribunal for Lebanon is a distinctly American-Israeli resolution which can not be seen as expressing the will of the international [community]. The proof is the sharp split it brought about in the Security Council chamber…

"The countries that rejected the resolution comprehend that, first and foremost, justice is not established in this way, which is unprecedented in the history of the UN, and that the situation in Lebanon cannot bear this kind of resolution, which may have dangerous repercussions for Lebanese national unity.

"It was clear throughout the discussion of the resolution that the American administration wanted to take revenge on the opponents of its occupations and its policy in the region, and thus wanted to politicize the international tribunal even before its establishment…

"[The] patriotic Lebanese faction, which represents… the majority of Lebanese, was never for a single day against the establishment of the tribunal, but only against its politicization and against its goals, in everything connected with the usurpation of Lebanese sovereignty for the benefit of forces that were never for a single day for the Lebanese, and never will be. And the other faction, which has monopolized the [Lebanese] government and which bows to foreign dictates, wanted the opposite, and did what the Americans and Israelis asked of it…

"As for Syria, it consistently stated, and states, that this kind of tribunal is not its concern, and that it was not at all consulted concerning it, and thus it has nothing to do with it. [Syria] continues to hold its current position, [which is based] on the principle that national decisions supersede any international decision, and that if there are any Syrian suspects in the Al-Hariri assassination, they will be tried according to Syrian law…."[2]

Al-Thawra Columnist: The Resolution Entails "Great Dangers" for Lebanon

On May 31, 2007, columnist Ahmad Dawa wrote in the Syrian government daily Al-Thawra:

"Resolution 1757, which was ratified by the Security Council with its members split and with more than half the world not supporting it, is a practical translation of the politicization of the inquiries into the Al-Hariri assassination. This demonstrates the direct and crude American intervention in the region's issues.

"The strong objections from those members who abstained from voting reveal the great dangers that this resolution entails for the situation in Lebanon, with all its complexities…

"This resolution curtails Lebanon's sovereignty, will heighten division, and will have a [negative] impact on national unity… By adopting this resolution, the Security Council could turn into a council for sanctions, war, and [UN Charter] Chapter 7. At the same time, it assassinated the [very] justice that it is supposed to be dedicated to establishing…

It would have been better for the countries that sponsored this resolution, and for the Security Council in their wake, to not favor one side over another when dealing with the situation in Lebanon. They should have taken into account the gravity of the [Security Council's] setting a grave precedent for intervention in the affairs of sovereign countries…"[3]