UNIFIL: Mandate Ends Monday!
Amidst the discussions about the Israeli strike on the UNIFIL position in Lebanon, commentators are missing one important point. On 31 July 2006 the UN Security Council’s mandate, Resolution 1655 of 31 January 2006, expires. I’ve searched press reports and the UN site and I see no evidence that the Security Council has thus far acted to extend the mandate, although it is not inconceivable that I missed some recent extension. If I have, please let me know.
What was the original UNIFIL mandate? The mandate, as it appears on the UNIFIL official website had three parts.
- Confirm the withdrawal of Israeli forces from southern Lebanon;
- Restore international peace and security;
- Assist the Government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area.
When the Israelis withdrew from southern Lebanon UNIFIL had successfully overseen its first mission. Obviously, the second element of the mission imploded a few weeks ago. And the reason for that implosion was the failure of the Lebanese government to follow through on its responsibilities related to the third part of the UNIFIL mission.
In January 2006, at the behest of the Lebanese government, the Security Council extended, but only for six months, the UNIFIL mandate. When it did, the Council made clear that it had concerns about the failure of the Lebanese government to act in the south.
5. Reiterates its call on the parties to continue to fulfil [sic] the commitments they have given to respect fully the entire withdrawal line identified by the United Nations, as set out in the Secretary-General’s report of 16 June 2000 (S/2000/590) and to exercise utmost restraint;
6. Reiterates its call upon the Government of Lebanon to fully extend and exercise its sole and effective authority throughout the South;
7. Welcomes the steps undertaken recently by the Lebanese Government to strengthen the liaison between its armed forces and UNIFIL, including the establishment of a Lebanese Armed Forces liaison office at UNIFIL headquarters in Naqoura, the appointment of liaison officers to UNIFIL field battalions, and the appointment of a new government coordinator with UNIFIL, and acknowledges the firm intention of the Lebanese Government to preserve the security and, to that end, to reinforce the presence of its armed forces in the southern region and to coordinate their activities with UNIFIL;
8. Urges nevertheless the Lebanese Government to do more to assert its authority in the South, to exert control and monopoly over the use of force and to maintain law and order on its entire territory and to prevent attacks from Lebanon across the Blue Line [the de facto Lebanese-Israeli border], including through deploying additional numbers of Lebanese Armed Forces and Internal Security Forces and taking up UNIFIL’s proposals to
enhance coordination between those forces and UNIFIL on the ground and establishing a Joint Planning Cell, as recommended by the Secretary-General in his report. . . .
Note the bolded (by me) parts in sub-sections 6 and 8, especially the call for the Lebanese government “to exert control and monopoly over the use of force and to maintain law and order on its entire territory and to prevent attacks from Lebanon across the Blue Line. . . .” The phrase about the “monopoly over the use of force” in the south is a clear call for the government to disarm Hezbollah and, in the interim, to prevent it from attacking Israel.
Resolution 1655 also stated (the bolding is mine) that the Security Council was
Gravely concerned at the persistence of tension and violence along the Blue Line, including the hostilities initiated by Hizbullah on 21 November 2005 and those triggered by the firing of rockets from Lebanon into Israel on 27 December 2005, which demonstrated once more that the situation remains volatile and fragile and underlined yet again the urgent need for the Lebanese Government to fully extend its authority and exert control and monopoly over the use of force throughout its territory, as outlined in the Secretary-General’s report of 18 January 2006 (S/2006/26), and concerned also by the continuing Israeli violations of Lebanese air space. . . .
The failure of the UNIFIL mission was the direct result of the unwillingness, or the inability, of the Lebanese government, six full years after the Israeli withdrawal, to exert its “monopoly over the use of force” in southern Lebanon.
The question now becomes: should/will the UN extend the mandate again? Will the United States veto such an extension? And in the absence of an extension, will the UNIFIL force be withdrawn next week?
