By Raghida Dergham

The tribunal has been adopted by the Security Council in a promise to Lebanon that there will be no room any longer for dodging surveillance or for immunity against punishment. The tribunal also arrived as a gift from the international community to everyone in Lebanon, regardless of their political, sectarian or ethnic affiliations.

The court stands as a precedent in the Middle East region, a pledge to encircle and contain those who once thought that the strategy of politically-motivated assassinations and sowing seditions would ever block the path of justice.

The endorsement of the international tribunal as a binding Security Council resolution under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter came after its opponents thought that by barring the convention of the Lebanese parliament to ratify the treaty to set the court up would foil it. But now they are surprised by a new reality they have never expected.

Setting the tribunal up under an international resolution is political defeat to the camp that opposed the it, even though it was this very camp that has actually pushed for its establishment under Chapter 7, because it had the chance to make the choice of opening the gates of the parliament so that the parliamentary majority could vote on the treaty of the tribunal's ratification in line with the Constitution. All of this, however, is nothing but a victory for the ideals of justice, a victory that is also a gift to all sides in Lebanon, and a chance for all the people of Lebanon to reflect on the significance of establishing the international tribunal through peaceful means within the Security Council to prosecute those suspected of politically motivated assassinations in Lebanon, most importantly, the criminal assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and his companions.

It is a chance to reflect on the price that Lebanon could stand to pay if external sides, whether regimes, militias, or terrorist organizations, were able to continue their activities against Lebanon without accountability or control.

It is also a chance to embrace the political openness and renew hope in dialogue and consensus among the people of Lebanon.

At the top of the Lebanese government is a distinguished, internationally respected statesman, who is full of determination to unite all the people of Lebanon despite all the challenges. The name of this statesman is Fouad Siniora, a man who has reached this post because he was destined to and not because it was his desire, and now his presence has become indispensable during this critical stage of the Lebanese march.

For plans are being made and schemes are being weaved to throw Lebanon into a bloody whirlpool with the aim of turning it into another Iraq, turning it into a battleground for terrorists of all sorts, sects and denominations, and a scene for a Lebanese-Palestinian battle to be used as a pretext for a new civil war.

Today, however, there is a chance for all the people of Lebanon, of all walks, to tell their leadership that such a fate is absolutely unacceptable.

Every Lebanese citizen should read into the developments taking place in their immediate neighborhoods, and question the reasons that were behind the wave of prosperity, economic growth, development projects and the improving living standards taking place in the majority of the Arab countries, while , at the same time, Lebanon is deteriorating economically, socially, and security wise.

Should there be a battle in Lebanon, in the same way there are battles for power in other countries, then, this battle should be a political, peaceful one, free from polarizations and foreign exploitations.

If, however, the aim of this battle was to do services to regional powers that have long gotten used to abuse Lebanon, be it Syria, Israel, Iran, or anyone else, then this would mean that the tragedy of Lebanon lies in the fact that these wars will only end when the Lebanese offer their mutilated corpses as fuel for these conflicts.

However, the Lebanese now have the chance to rescue their country from outbidding that only comes at its expense, and to spare it a bleak future, and, in doing so, they will have to shoulder a major share of the responsibility. For the establishment of the international tribunal through a UN Security Council resolution takes this issue away from the bazaar of bargaining, tradeoffs, and political blackmail, and no one will now be able to stand in the way of the legal process as Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri did when he rejected the call to convene a parliamentary session to vote on the ratification of the tribunal.

Now is Berry's chance to work persistently and honestly to embrace the breakthrough and return Lebanon to the values of dialogue and the fundamentals of consensus. Berry can also take a stand against the hijacking of an entire sect, whose true place belongs at the core of the loyalty to the State and to its full political participation.

It is equally important for the parliamentary majority and the March 14 Forces to extend a hand to the opposition and the other factions as part of an initiative for political openness. This will turn the decision to set up the tribunal into a home investment in the reconciliation between all the people of Lebanon.

The agreement over the international tribunal was the first item on the agenda of the consensus reached by the all the different Lebanese sides during the dialogue sessions that took place a year and a half ago.

Right now, however, after the international tribunal has been taken out from the domain of the wrangling between the Lebanese sides, progress should be made in the direction of meeting the other terms unanimously agreed upon and revive the effort toward meeting these terms.

These terms cover relations with Syria, the need to demark the boarders between it and Lebanon, as well as the settlement of the issue of the Shebaa Farms and the establishment of its identity, whether Lebanese or Syrian.

Damascus, however, refused to abide by international resolutions pertaining to the demarcation of the borders with Lebanon and the establishment of diplomatic relations with it, through which, Syria would confirm its respect for Lebanon's sovereignty and independence.

Syria has also evaded the commitment of demarking the borders to include the Shebaa Farms, and assumed a position implying that the fate of these farms - which Damascus has previously and repeatedly said they were Lebanese to justify the continuation of the Lebanese resistance - must remain suspended until after liberating the Syrian Golan from the Israeli occupation. This means that the Syrian regime does not conceal its intention to keep these farms hinging on its bargains with Israel over the Golan Heights.

In response to this, Prime Minister Fouad Siniora proposed placing these farms under UN guardianship until their legal and border status has been resolved. This proposal should be approved by all Lebanese sides, especially since the Syrian stances have deprived Hezbollah of a pretext to continue its armed resistance to liberate the Shebaa Farms form the Israeli occupation following the Syria's declared intentions to subject the fate of these farms to the Syrian-Israeli relation, and that the fate of these farms will not be settled until after settling the Golan issue.

Logic, therefore, stipulates that Siniora's proposal, along with the Syrian stance, places Hezbollah before a basic equation: the choice between the State and the army, or the political parties and the militia. Hezbollah has for long evaded its commitment to surrender its arms to the State through different ways and means. It provoked an Israeli war on Lebanon, which Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah claimed to have not anticipated when he crossed the Lebanese-Israeli borders to kill and kidnap Israeli soldiers.

Today, however, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah should better take part in the Lebanese workshop now open with the aim of resuming dialogue and returning to the principals and the foundations of consensus. He is better declaring that he has chosen to be on the side of the State, its army and its arms; taking the initiative to merge the military wing of his party into the Lebanese army and play his role in the Lebanese political process.

For today, everyone is watching for what Hezbollah would do and what his choices would be: will it be with the independence of Lebanon or with keeping it as a battleground for open wars to serve foreign interests?

The new political and military realities in Lebanon place the Lebanese state at the forefront, because Lebanon, the State and the army is in a military confrontation with an attack emanating from beyond the boarders at the hands of Fatah al-Islam in Nahar el-Bared. Lebanon, the State and the legitimate government is in a confrontation with those who opposed the accountability for politically motivated assassinations through their refusal to establish the international tribunal.

This new reality marks that, for the fist time, the Lebanese State is in a confrontation with a Syria that is fully aware of the significance of establishing the international tribunal through a UN Security Council resolution under Chapter 7.

The new situation, from the international perspective, is that the establishment of the court will lead to the close monitoring of the reactions to the international decision.

This is in addition to the fact that the international tribunal is valuable trump card even within the framework of any US-Syrian negotiations, since it will make it possible to conduct these negotiations from a position of strength rather than weakness as in the case of the US-Iranian negotiations, in case the US-Syrian meetings developed into broader talks.

US President George Bush, in search for an opportunity to end his presidential term with something other than the failure in Iraq, might also find this opportunity in Syria, provided that Damascus first gives him the pretexts and excuses.

The decision to establish the international tribunal must be viewed in connection with other decisions issued by the Security Council with respect to Lebanon, particularly those pertaining to the international independent investigation panel headed by Serge Brammertz.

Certainly, there will also be other future resolutions against those who might attempt to trespass upon the international tribunal once again by new assassinations or by provoking other wars.

As has been proven by the voting on the international tribunal, none of the UN Security Council permanent member states will provide any cover or immunity against accountability.