UNIFIL, Lebanese army and Hezbollah: A delicate relationship

Hanan Nasser

International Peace Studies Centre (IPSC)
peace-ipsc.org

In recent weeks the Lebanese state, United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) and Hezbollah worked to ease tensions following tensions between the peacekeeping mission and southerners with the three sides stressing on commitment to Resolution 1701 which called for a ceasefire to the July 2006 war between Lebanon and Israel.

On July 3, residents of the southern village of Qabrikha blocked a UNIFIL patrol belonging to the French contingent throwing stones at it, commandeering a soldier’s weapons and wounding the patrol leader. The attack was the second of its kind in less than a week, after villagers from Khirbet Silim threw stones at a UNIFIL patrol, injuring two French peacekeepers, following large scale capacity-testing exercises by the force.

A series of high-level meetings between top UNIFIL Lebanese army and political officials have taken place in order to contain the tensions.

UNIFIL was faced with accusations it was seeking to alter the rules of engagement stipulated by Resolution 1701. Journalist Nicolas Nassif wrote in the Lebanese daily Al Akhbar on July 7 that the army had noticed that “senior officer in the international force’s command sought to follow new rules in the force’s implementation of powers, performance and mission” during the two-month transitional phase after the handover of UNIFIL’s command from former UNIFIL Commander Claudio Graziano to Spanish successor General Alberto Assarta. The paper said such alteration relied on finding a loophole in the force’s rules of engagement followed by UNIFIL since 2006 in its patrols of southern towns. Hezbollah’s commander in southern Lebanon Sheikh Nabil Qaouq warned on Sunday that the recent developments in the south were “part of an international scheme to put pressure on UNIFIL in order to provoke it to change the rules of engagement.”

Lebanon has had a long history with the peacekeeping force. However over the years UNIFIL’s mandate several adjustments and its mission, as the domestic situation in Lebanon, is influenced by developments in the region and specifically on Lebanon’s southern border.

UNIFIL’s mandate has been expanded since it was originally established in 1978 by Security Council resolutions 425 and 426. Its original mission was to: “Confirm the Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon; restore international peace and security and assist the Lebanese government in restoring its effective authority in the area.” Then the force consisted of 5,000 lightly armed troops which were increased to 6,000.

The mission’s mandate underwent three changes, once following the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon. The UNIFIL scaled down its mission which was then limited to humanitarian assistance in the south. The second adjustment took place following the 2000 Israeli withdrawal from the south when UNIFIL deployed to the southern border.

The UNIFIL’s mandate underwent a major adjustment in 2006 under Security Council Resolution 1701. The resolution allowed for a maximum of 15,000 peacekeepers, expanded the mandate of UNIFIL and adjusted its rules of engagement. Article 12 of the resolution “authorized” the mission to “resist attempts by forceful means to prevent it from discharging its duties under the mandate of the Security Council, and to protect United Nations personnel, facilities, installations and equipment, ensure the security and freedom of movement of United Nations personnel, humanitarian workers and, without prejudice to the responsibility of the Government of Lebanon, to protect civilians under imminent threat of physical violence”. (http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/1701%282006%29)  Under the new rules of engagement, UNIFIL now had “sufficient authority” if confronted by a hostile activity.

Other objectives include: “Monitoring the cessation of hostilities; accompany and support the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) as they deploy throughout the South, as Israel withdraws its armed forces from Lebanon; coordinate these activities with the Governments of Lebanon and Israel … assist the LAF in taking steps towards the establishment between the Blue Line and the Litani river of an free of any armed personnel, assets and weapons other than those of the Government of Lebanon and of UNIFIL deployed in this area; assist the Government of Lebanon in securing its borders and other entry points to prevent the entry in Lebanon without its consent of arms or related materiel.”

The tensions raised several issues: the relationship between UNIFIL and the army, the relationship between UNIFIL and Hezbollah and the force’s ties with the local population. The success of UNIFIL’s operations on the ground depends on the three factors. Recent developments showed that the force cannot operate with the full coordination with the army and assistance of the Lebanese Armed Forces. Furthermore, UNIFIL needs to maintain good relations with Hezbollah in order to ensure the support of southern residents.

Underlining that, UN Special Coordinator for Lebanon Michael Williams told the Lebanese Al-Akhbar daily on Monday that there was “no crisis of confidence” between UNIFIL and Hezbollah. He even commended Hezbollah for playing “a positive role in the past days to ease the tension”.

The three sides were keen to renew and underline commitment to the implementation of 1701 and the UNIFIL mission.

For its part, the Lebanese army insisted on maintaining the rules of engagement of 2006. The Lebanese army was sending a message that while it supports the mission’s liberty of movement, as stipulated by Resolution 1701, the international force cannot conduct its operations without full coordination with the Lebanese military establishment. It also expanded the scope of such coordination in order to restore confidence in UNIFIL. 

Meanwhile, Hezbollah said it welcomed UNIFIL’s presence as long as it remained committed to its peacekeeping mission within the framework of Resolution 1701. Hezbollah’s position aims to show the Lebanese group is committed to of Resolution 1701 and it is not seeking to undermine the role of UNIFIL.

The manner by which the issue was solved aimed to maintain a balance of power on the ground of each of UNIFIL, the army and Hezbollah which each side, especially the army and Hezbollah, that their presence cannot be ignored or overstepped.

Related posts:

1. A Synoptic Analysis of Recent Regional Developments (Part I): Israel’s Military Clash with the Lebanese Army
2. The Aftermath of the Lebanese-Israeli Clashes
3. Cultural Sufism and its Relationship to ‘Irfan
4. Israel and the Changing Balance of Power in the Middle East: Is War The Next Inevitable Step?
5. A Tense Lebanon Awaits Outcome of Regional Diplomacy