It was not the day of reckoning which many have been waiting for, but last week’s official launch of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon in The Hague was the closest that followers of the country’s 14 March movement have come in their quest to seek and punish the killers of Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.

It’s been a rough ride and a long one for them as well. Four years after the horrific explosion in Beirut that killed Hariri and 22 others, the special international court, the first to investigate terrorist-related crimes, was convened. But as many Lebanese celebrated, others expressed fear that the tribunal’s final judgment may ignite sectarian violence in a troubled and divided country.

No charges have been filed yet, but four senior Lebanese security officers have been under arrest in Lebanon for almost four years on suspicion of direct involvement in the murders. According to the chief prosecutor of the International Tribunal, Daniel Bellemare, they will be flown to The Hague where their fate will be decided.

But it will be almost impossible for Bellemare to keep politics out of the court’s business, as he had promised. The 14 March movement, an alliance of pro-Western, anti-Syrian parties, has pointed the finger at Damascus in the wake of Hariri’s killing. The call for an international tribunal has been viewed as a political pressure tool on Syria, which was forced to quit Lebanon, after decades of uncontested control, a few weeks after the assassination. A series of car explosions soon after, in which prominent Lebanese politicians and media personalities opposed to Syria were killed or seriously injured, was also blamed on Damascus and its agents.

For almost three years the specter of incrimination in Hariri’s death by an international body kept the Syrians on their toes. The UN Security Council formed an investigation committee in April 2005 and since then it had released 11 reports. The first two had directly accused Syrian and Lebanese officials of complicity in the murders, but recent reports took a more lenient approach, asking only for Syria’s cooperation in the investigation.

Damascus had insisted that it had no part in the assassination of Hariri, with whom it had an uneasy relationship, but its accusers pointed that such a meticulously planned plot could not have taken place without the involvement of Syria’s powerful intelligence apparatus which had absolute control over Lebanon’s security.

Hariri’s death was not the first political murder to take place in Lebanon. Nor was it the last. But it happened at a particularly precarious period in Middle Eastern history. The Bush administration had just invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and was busy waging an international war on terrorism and states that sponsor terrorists. Syria was already on America’s list of countries posing a threat to regional stability. Its special ties to Iran, Hezbollah and radical Palestinian groups were seen as a liability.

In the aftermath of Syria’s exit from Lebanon a new pro-Western government was formed, with the 14 March coalition, of once former enemies, controlling a majority in the legislature. The opposition, led by Hezbollah and leftist parties, including a Maronite Christian leader Gen. Michel Aoun, rallied to Syria’s support and warned of an American-Israeli conspiracy against Lebanon. A political stalemate ensued as both sides traded accusations. The country was paralyzed.

Hariri’s son, Saad Hariri, spearheaded the campaign to set up an international tribunal to punish his father’s killers. As Syria cringed under international isolation, pro- and anti-Syrian groups confronted each other in Beirut and the suburbs. A wave of car blasts shook the country and the specter of a new civil war loomed large. But when Israel launched its war against Hezbollah in the summer of 2006, the stalemate was broken but only temporarily.

Hezbollah emerged shaken but undefeated and after months of tedious negotiations with the Hariri camp, a breakthrough was reached through a Qatari mediation and Syria’s blessing. A new president was elected and the government of Fouad Siniora was back in business.

But there are many deal breakers including the holding of new elections in June and the fate of Hezbollah’s huge cache of weapons, which remains out of the army’s control. Relations with Syria improved considerably as ambassadors were exchanged. Moreover, a new US approach to Damascus began to take shape under the Obama administration.

The future of this fragile rapprochement now hangs in the balance as the Hariri tribunal begins its work in earnest. As the 14 March Movement celebrated last week, the opposition or the 8 March Alliance, warned of attempts to politicize the case and polarize the country. The international tribunal may be a good thing in a perfect world. But for the Lebanese it appears to be a risky development that could burden touchy sectarian relations and tenuous politics. For a country whose citizens still recall the horrors of civil wars and bloody communal confrontations, the court’s verdict, which could take more than three years to reach, could threaten the future of Lebanese accord. And when the day of reckoning comes, the people of Lebanon may find that justice had come at a hefty price.

— Osama Al Sharif is a political commentator based in Jordan.