Analysis: A withdrawal could not come at a worse time for the Lebanese government and plays into the hands of Hezbollah and Israel
By Ray Murphy, University of Galway
Since its inception in 1978, UNIFIL (United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon) has played a significant role in maintaining peace and security in south Lebanon. At the same time it has drawn criticism from both Israel and the US. After many years of threatening to end the UNIFIL peacekeeping mission, the US has carried out its threat by not approving the usual annual renewal of its mandate.
Lebanese officials have called for UNIFIL to remain. In many ways a withdrawal could not come at a worse time for the Lebanese government. It is currently making real efforts to compel Hezbollah to disarm and the threat of a descent into another civil war is ever present. The Lebanese army is already struggling to meet all of its commitments. A withdrawal would further undermine security in the south and along the border with Syria.
As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, the US had the power and financial clout to bring about an immediate or incremental end to the 47 year old peacekeeping operation. European states opposed the winding down of UNIFIL, especially France and Italy. It looks like a compromise involving a one-year extension followed by a withdrawal thereafter has been agreed.
We need your consent to load this rte-player contentWe use rte-player to manage extra content that can set cookies on your device and collect data about your activity. Please review their details and accept them to load the content.Manage Preferences
From RTÉ Radio 1's Today with Claire Byrne, Professor Ray Murphy, Irish Centre for Human Rights at University of Galway, on the withdrawal of UNIFIL
The US has already imposed major cuts in funding to the peacekeeping force. This is just another step in the Trump administration's fundamental reframing of US foreign policy and international commitments. Drastic cuts for funding UN agencies and operations are just another manifestation of changed US priorities.
The US and Israel regard the UNIFIL mission as ineffectual and a waste of money. It is accused of hindering the goal of defeating Hezbollah and restoring full security control to the Lebanese Armed Forces, a task the Lebanese government is finally undertaking in earnest.
The European argument is that prematurely ending UNIFIL before the Lebanese army is able to fully secure the border area would create a vacuum that armed elements, such as Hezbollah, could exploit. It now seems Israel may reluctantly agree to an extension. The French noted that when a UN peacekeeping mission in Mali was terminated before government troops were ready to deal with security threats, Islamic extremists moved in.
From France24, What is the UN peacekeeping force UNIFIL in Lebanon?
Since the outbreak of hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah in 2006, UNIFIL has remained a mission straddling the line somewhere between traditional peacekeeping and more robust peace enforcement. This caused serious rifts among permanent members of the UN Security Council, especially in relation to UNIFIL’s freedom of movement. In the past the US has criticised UNIFIL and advocated for a more assertive role in confronting armed groups. This criticism is unfair as the mission was and remains one of peacekeeping, not peace enforcement. Why should UNIFIL become an instrument of US foreign policy? The Security Council has consistently reaffirmed the basic principles of peacekeeping, including consent of the parties, impartiality and non-use of force, except in self-defence and defence of the mandate.
Israel has consistently opposed UNIFIL and criticised its ineffectiveness and failure to prevent Hezbollah’s rearmament. Although UNIFIL has always confronted a near impossible situation which has ultimately led to a failure to implement its mandate, it would be wrong to ignore its contribution. It has fulfilled an important role in negotiation, mediation and confidence building that remains vital. UNIFIL has also been a reliable source of accurate information to the Security Council and it has been extending humanitarian aid to the civilian population.
Read more: 'A challenging situation': Irish troops and UNIFIL in Lebanon
Failing to renew the mandate plays into the hands of Hezbollah and the Israelis. It will also be seen as a further blow to efforts by the Lebanese government to govern effectively and extend its control over the whole of its territory. Israel’s offensive actions in Lebanon have destabilised the situation further. It needs to withdraw fully from the positions it has occupied in south Lebanon and cease military operations in the country. Hezbollah for its part needs to guarantee freedom of movement for UNIFIL and cooperate with the efforts by the Lebanese government to disarm. All parties must cease any hostile acts against UNIFIL.
It is far from certain that a reconfigured peacekeeping force could continue to operate in south Lebanon without the legitimacy and support that a UN resolution provides. Apart from the question of who would finance such a force, it would be even more challenging to agree a mandate and ensure cooperation from the various parties on the ground. Previous Multi National Forces in Lebanon sustained serious casualties in the 1980’s. Even with the removal of the so-called 'triple lock’ requiring UN approval for Irish participation, continued participation in a non-UN approved mission in the future would present many challenges for Ireland.
Follow RTÉ Brainstorm on WhatsApp and Instagram for more stories and updates
Prof. Ray Murphy is a professor at the Irish Centre for Human Rights at the School of Law at University of Galway
The views expressed here are those of the author and do not represent or reflect the views of RTÉ
