Connelly to Aoun: ‘Serious Consequences’ if Lebanon Doesn’t Meet International Commitments
إقرأ هذا الخبر بالعربية
U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon Maura Connelly warned on Monday of the serious consequences Lebanon may face if it does not respect international obligations.
She reiterated, after holding talks with Free Patriotic Movement head MP Michel Aoun in Rabieh, the United States’ view that it is important to ensure that events in Syria do no create instability or tension in Lebanon.
She told Aoun that the U.S. expects Lebanon to meet all of its international obligations, including Lebanon’s commitment to cooperate with and fund the Special Tribunal for Lebanon.
Furthermore, she expressed the United States’ concern that a failure by Lebanon to meet its obligations to the tribunal could lead to serious consequences if Lebanon does not meet its international commitments.
In addition, the ambassador and the MP discussed the political and security situation in Lebanon and the current situation in Syria.
Connelly renewed the commitment of the United States to a stable, sovereign, and independent Lebanon.
24 October 2011, 16:54
103
This means that the US intends to destabilize Lebanon (possibly out of the Syrian situation) if we don't pay up on the STL, etc. etc.
24 October 2011, 23:01
30
This is hilarious... the U.S. doesn't even recognize the international court!
25 October 2011, 01:26
20
M8 in 2009 parliamentary elections received 55% of the peoples vote. The resistance is 100% legit. Those who love Israel...the border in the south is open.
25 October 2011, 03:20
60
Independance... Yes cabinet ad parliament has ratified the weopens of the resistance. The did during sainora's government in 2005. (with one of largest parliment vote of confidence). They did it again after Doha in 2008. They again extend this with hariri's government of 2009 government policy statement and parliament approval. And of course with miqati's government included the the resistance arms in the cabinet... Which for the first time the mustaqbul and LF did not approve but still passed in parliament.
So wake up, stop such ignorant talk.
25 October 2011, 06:09
02
Mowaten, what you're saying is not very smart because the STL funds are tiny compared to what you will have to pay if sanctions start hitting lebanon. So be careful what you wish for ...
25 October 2011, 09:23
02
Let the thugs say what they want: it is only out of frustrtion of the coming times :)
they know that now their days are counted.....
25 October 2011, 13:10
11
Geha your days are numbered dude....for now i suggest u find a hole and hide in it.
25 October 2011, 15:20
00
@Judge mowaten the great jurist!
Leidschendam, a prominent judge of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon has stressed that the STL is legitimate, not only from the viewpoint of international law, given that it was established in accordance with a U.N. Security Council resolution issued under Chapter 7, but also according to Lebanon's legal and constitutional principles. Its constitutionality can derive from one of two options:
25 October 2011, 15:21
00
- Adopting the agreement the Lebanese government and the U.N. had negotiated about by the Lebanese Parliament according to Article 52 of the Lebanese Constitution which stipulates that "treaties involving State finances, trade agreements and in general treaties which cannot be renounced at the end of each calendar year, are not definitive except after they have been approved by the Parliament."
- The preamble to the Lebanese Constitution, which stipulates in its clause (b) that "Lebanon is a founding and active member of the United Nations Organization and abides by its covenants and by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Government shall embody these principles in all fields and areas without exception." Not to mention that the Charter of the United Nations obliges U.N. member states to "accept and carry out the decisions of the (U.N.) Security Council."
