Four days after the Beirut Blast of 4th August 2020, Lebanese president Michel Aoun has attempted to explain what caused the largest explosion since the end of the Second World War. He attributes it to either the accidental ignition of 2,750 tonnes of Ammonium Nitrate (AN) stored in a warehouse at Beirut port or a planned attack by some external entity. There may be a nexus between the two causes.

If the blast was an accident, its impact has been devastating. More than 160 people have died so far and at least 6,000 have been injured. Most observers agree that the storage of the fertiliser did not adhere to safety procedures.

Negligence and incompetence appear to have scarred the six-year storage of the AN. Besides, it is alleged that fireworks were also stored close to the warehouse recently.

A number of officials connected to the port and customs have been arrested. The elected government made up largely of representatives from the Shia and Christian communities is determined to show that it will not tolerate gross dereliction of duty and ineptitude. At the same time, it is aware that it should not scapegoat any individual or group in order to protect the real culprits behind the blast.

Planned attack?

It is quite conceivable that the real culprits are linked to the second likely cause – a planned attack. This theory, which has different variations, has been advanced by some respected commentators. One such variation by the French writer, Thierry Meyssan, argues that “Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu authorised a strike against a Hezbollah arms depot using a new weapon that has been tested for seven months in Syria.”

The weapon, which “is a missile with a tactical nuclear component in its warhead, causes a smoke mushroom characteristic of nuclear weapons but “is obviously not an atomic bomb in the strategic sense.” It has also been deployed against Iranian military vessels in the Persian Gulf.

Israel has, of course, denied that it was behind the Beirut blast. The Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah, has also insisted that his group has no arms depot at the Beirut port. In this regard, it should be noted that it was Netanyahu who, in a speech at the UN General Assembly on 27 September 2018, alluded to alleged Hezbollah arms at a warehouse in Beirut port. The allegation has never been proven.

Impartial inquiry

This is why there has to be an impartial inquiry into the Beirut Blast of Aug 4. President Aoun and the Hezbollah are against internationalising the inquiry. They fear that given U.S. and Western influence within the international system, such an inquiry will be manipulated to exonerate Israel.

A way out of this situation would be for United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Gutteres to establish a small Committee of Inquiry comprising a representative each from the U.S., France, China and Russia with the UNSG as the chair whose main objective would be to determine who was responsible for the blast. The committee will report its findings directly to the UN General Assembly.

The committee should look deeply at the two causes which President Aoun referred to. In examining the second possibility – an external attack – the committee, one hopes, will have the courage and the principles to reveal why Lebanon has been under tremendous pressure in the last few months, both economically and politically, aimed at emasculating the government in Beirut and bringing about a regime change that will benefit Israel and Western interests.

Without such an understanding of the geopolitical forces at work in the region where Lebanon is located, it will not be possible to fathom why the Beirut Blast occurred.

-- BERNAMA

Dr Chandra Muzaffar is the President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST) Malaysia.