Peacekeeping in Lebanon depends on a sound political base, a well-defined mandate and objectives as well as the cooperation of the parties concerned. However, in discussions about the international force for Lebanon in 2006, these issues were overlooked. Finding a quick solution became the overriding consideration. This study, by the Irish Centre for Human Rights, argues that the current UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) has to overcome serious obstacles in order to achieve its mandate. These are linked to broader political and security issues that need immediate attention in order to resolve the problems confronting Lebanon as a whole.
Israel’s actions in south Lebanon during 2006 could reignite long-simmering religious and political tensions there. Civil war, not unlike that which broke out in April 1975 between Christian factions and leftist Muslim Lebanese supported by the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), remains a very real prospect. The prompt international response then is in stark contrast with that of the July 2006 crisis. During the 1970s when the UNIFIL mandate proved impractical, the de facto mission of the Force became the provision of a secure environment for the local population. Its ultimate success in achieving this goal vindicated the role of traditional peacekeeping. Today, lessons have not been learned from the situation where the UN was called upon to fulfill a range of impossible and confused tasks.
UNIFIL still confronts major obstacles and the issues that precipitated the 2006 crisis are not yet resolved:
- The UN is not equipped or prepared for the kind of operation required in South Lebanon.
- UNIFIL’s mandate is uncertain and there is no concept of operations. The command and control structures and rules of engagement are also uncertain.
- It was not feasible to authorise a lead country as part of a coalition of the willing.
- There have been increased threats against UNIFIL from militant groups and the situation along the Blue Line remains tense with sporadic standoffs between Israeli and Lebanese forces. Israel is violating Lebanese air space.
- Israel claims that Hizbollah is rebuilding its military capacity, especially outside the UNIFIL area of operations. Syria is probably providing weapons to Hizbollah and Palestinian factions fighting Lebanese forces.
- Both Syria and Iran have an interest in maintaining a weak central government in Lebanon.
Despite the presence of a large UNIFIL contingent, the overall political and security situation remains unpredictable. It is likely there will be further conflict in Lebanon before the issues are resolved. All of Lebanon’s neighbours need to stop contributing to its security problems:
- Israel needs to cooperate in handing over information relating to the cluster munitions used during the conflict in 2006;
- Syria needs to cooperate in facilitating a resolution of the Shebaa (Shab’a) Farms dispute and finalising a delineation of its border with Lebanon; and
- Syria and Iran should stop breaching the arms embargo along the Lebanese-Syrian border.
