04/08/06, Yassin Musharbash, A Security Force for Lebanon
Post
Diplomats Negotiate a Patchwork Troop to Secure Peace
United Nations diplomats face a genuine challenge: They must put together a peacekeeping force for Lebanon that both Hezbollah and Israel will accept. France will likely lead the force. The United States and Britain will not be involved -- but Germany and some Muslim states may be.
[photo Getty Images, Until now, the United Nations has only placed observers in Lebanon. Soon, however, an international force with a UN mandate could be deployed.]
With just about everyone calling for its creation, observers estimate it will take two or three days, or perhaps a week, for the international community to agree on a "peacekeeping" or "stabilization" force for Lebanon. So far, however, a decision has been stalled over prickly questions over the sensitive composition of the force and what its exact mandate will be when it heads to the front: a Lebanon that is under siege by Israel but also home to Hezbollah fighters whose steady flurry of rockets have made life unsafe for residents of northern Israel.
The primary challenge facing diplomats during preliminary negotiations at the United Nations in New York is to put together an armed force that all parties involved in the conflict can accept. It doesn't matter what color the troop's helmets will be or what uniforms they will wear -- just pulling these troops together will be an achievement. After all, Israel has never before agreed to the creation of a force like this.
There is hardly any other region of the world that is as much of a political, military and diplomatic minefield as the Middle East. That already became clear when the idea of a peacekeeping or security force was first raised in recent weeks. A NATO force for southern Lebanon? Impossible, the German government insisted. The defense alliance would be perceived by Arabs as a tool of the US and hence as pro-Israel. So should US or British troops be sent instead, as Israel would have preferred? Given the political climate created by the war in Iraq and Washington's and London's support for Israel's military offensive, the US and Britain themselves conceded their presence would just serve as an invitation for Hezbollah attacks.
After almost three weeks of bloodshed between Israel and Hezbollah, the international community is still debating which political-military cloak is best worn when venturing into the hornet's nest that is southern Lebanon. There is now agreement on at least one point: France will likely lead the operation. But as one diplomat warned: "We're not going to send troops into Lebanon in order to continue the work of the Israeli army." He was making it clear that the grande nation is little inclined to go from house to house in order to disarm every single Hezbollah militant.
French at the helm?
But that's what Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert seemed to be hoping for when he stated in an interview that the international force should disarm the Shiite militia as called for in UN Resolution 1559. Still, the resolution also calls for restoring the authority of the Lebanese state and its army in all parts of country -- including Hezbollah's stronghold in the south. Most potential contributors to the force -- they currently include Sweden, Norway, Slovakia, Canada, Germany and Turkey, in addition to France -- envision stopping Hezbollah's rocket attacks on Israel as one aspect of a two-part mandate. The other part would consist of supporting the Lebanese army and restoring its authority.
The fact that Hezbollah isn't particularly open to the idea of an international force remains one of the main obstacles. With its leaders currently in hiding, diplomats have no chance of directly negotiating with Hezbollah. The militia must also still clarify the conditions under which it would agree to a cease-fire with the Lebanese government. To that end, the fact that a member of Hezbollah is now, for the first time, a member of Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Siniora's cabinet, creates a significant diplomatic advantage. A halfway legitimate channel of communication is now guaranteed.
Cautiously optimistic UN diplomats are wiring their home countries with messages that some progress is being made during the preliminary talks in New York. And diplomatic sources say that Paris and Washington are nearing an agreement. The two governments had long disagreed as to whether a cease-fire must be in place before the international security force marches into Lebanon -- or whether its arrival should instead serve as the signal that it is time for the fighting to stop.
How, exactly, that compromise will shape up remains unclear. Under one widely discussed scenario, the French could head into Lebanon first, alone and ready to face the tougher part of the mission. Then troops from other countries could follow. Others say the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), which is already stationed in southern Lebanon, could be expanded until other troops take over -- regardless of whether it is under a UN mandate or something else put together by the international community. A resolution complete with a mandate for the force is expected to clarify the question next week.
An Islamic peacekeeping force?
Meanwhile, the search for volunteers is underway. There is broad agreement that one or several Islamic countries should contribute troops in an effort to make the force more palatable to the Lebanese. Turkey appears to be willing to participate. But there is concern that Hezbollah will feel provoked by the presence of Sunni soldiers sent by a state that enjoys close military relations with Israel. Saudi Arabia and Jordan also want to help -- but they could probably only send a very small number of troops. Now Malaysia and Indonesia are being courted -- without success, so far.
But on Thursday, Malaysia, which is currently hosting a conference of the 56-member Organization of Islamic States, said it would consider an Islamic force for Lebanon. It's still unclear, however, how Israel views this proposal -- especially considering the fact that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced, at that very conference, that the destruction of Israel is the key to solving the conflict in the Middle East.
The possibility of a German contribution towards bringing peace in southern Lebanon also remains on the table. Such a contribution is seen as desirable within the international community, especially given the important role Berlin has played in diplomatic efforts to resolve the conflict. A spokesperson for the German government made it clear that Chancellor Angela Merkel never spoke "dismissively" of a possible German contribution to the force -- she just spoke with "reserve." Diplomats in Berlin say the creation of an international force won't fail for a lack of soldiers, and Germany is more likely to be involved than not. Still, it could be that Berlin's participation takes on a lower profile than that of other countries.
The news from New York suggests that, in the best case scenario, things could now start happening very quickly. British Prime Minister Tony Blair stated Thursday that he hopes to see an agreement on a resolution within days. Blair said it was a matter of bringing about an immediately effective ceasefire, in order then to create the conditions for an international peacekeeping force to act "in support of the Lebanese government."
United Nations diplomats face a genuine challenge: They must put together a peacekeeping force for Lebanon that both Hezbollah and Israel will accept. France will likely lead the force. The United States and Britain will not be involved -- but Germany and some Muslim states may be.
[photo Getty Images, Until now, the United Nations has only placed observers in Lebanon. Soon, however, an international force with a UN mandate could be deployed.]
With just about everyone calling for its creation, observers estimate it will take two or three days, or perhaps a week, for the international community to agree on a "peacekeeping" or "stabilization" force for Lebanon. So far, however, a decision has been stalled over prickly questions over the sensitive composition of the force and what its exact mandate will be when it heads to the front: a Lebanon that is under siege by Israel but also home to Hezbollah fighters whose steady flurry of rockets have made life unsafe for residents of northern Israel.
The primary challenge facing diplomats during preliminary negotiations at the United Nations in New York is to put together an armed force that all parties involved in the conflict can accept. It doesn't matter what color the troop's helmets will be or what uniforms they will wear -- just pulling these troops together will be an achievement. After all, Israel has never before agreed to the creation of a force like this.
There is hardly any other region of the world that is as much of a political, military and diplomatic minefield as the Middle East. That already became clear when the idea of a peacekeeping or security force was first raised in recent weeks. A NATO force for southern Lebanon? Impossible, the German government insisted. The defense alliance would be perceived by Arabs as a tool of the US and hence as pro-Israel. So should US or British troops be sent instead, as Israel would have preferred? Given the political climate created by the war in Iraq and Washington's and London's support for Israel's military offensive, the US and Britain themselves conceded their presence would just serve as an invitation for Hezbollah attacks.
After almost three weeks of bloodshed between Israel and Hezbollah, the international community is still debating which political-military cloak is best worn when venturing into the hornet's nest that is southern Lebanon. There is now agreement on at least one point: France will likely lead the operation. But as one diplomat warned: "We're not going to send troops into Lebanon in order to continue the work of the Israeli army." He was making it clear that the grande nation is little inclined to go from house to house in order to disarm every single Hezbollah militant.
French at the helm?
But that's what Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert seemed to be hoping for when he stated in an interview that the international force should disarm the Shiite militia as called for in UN Resolution 1559. Still, the resolution also calls for restoring the authority of the Lebanese state and its army in all parts of country -- including Hezbollah's stronghold in the south. Most potential contributors to the force -- they currently include Sweden, Norway, Slovakia, Canada, Germany and Turkey, in addition to France -- envision stopping Hezbollah's rocket attacks on Israel as one aspect of a two-part mandate. The other part would consist of supporting the Lebanese army and restoring its authority.
The fact that Hezbollah isn't particularly open to the idea of an international force remains one of the main obstacles. With its leaders currently in hiding, diplomats have no chance of directly negotiating with Hezbollah. The militia must also still clarify the conditions under which it would agree to a cease-fire with the Lebanese government. To that end, the fact that a member of Hezbollah is now, for the first time, a member of Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Siniora's cabinet, creates a significant diplomatic advantage. A halfway legitimate channel of communication is now guaranteed.
Cautiously optimistic UN diplomats are wiring their home countries with messages that some progress is being made during the preliminary talks in New York. And diplomatic sources say that Paris and Washington are nearing an agreement. The two governments had long disagreed as to whether a cease-fire must be in place before the international security force marches into Lebanon -- or whether its arrival should instead serve as the signal that it is time for the fighting to stop.
How, exactly, that compromise will shape up remains unclear. Under one widely discussed scenario, the French could head into Lebanon first, alone and ready to face the tougher part of the mission. Then troops from other countries could follow. Others say the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), which is already stationed in southern Lebanon, could be expanded until other troops take over -- regardless of whether it is under a UN mandate or something else put together by the international community. A resolution complete with a mandate for the force is expected to clarify the question next week.
An Islamic peacekeeping force?
Meanwhile, the search for volunteers is underway. There is broad agreement that one or several Islamic countries should contribute troops in an effort to make the force more palatable to the Lebanese. Turkey appears to be willing to participate. But there is concern that Hezbollah will feel provoked by the presence of Sunni soldiers sent by a state that enjoys close military relations with Israel. Saudi Arabia and Jordan also want to help -- but they could probably only send a very small number of troops. Now Malaysia and Indonesia are being courted -- without success, so far.
But on Thursday, Malaysia, which is currently hosting a conference of the 56-member Organization of Islamic States, said it would consider an Islamic force for Lebanon. It's still unclear, however, how Israel views this proposal -- especially considering the fact that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced, at that very conference, that the destruction of Israel is the key to solving the conflict in the Middle East.
The possibility of a German contribution towards bringing peace in southern Lebanon also remains on the table. Such a contribution is seen as desirable within the international community, especially given the important role Berlin has played in diplomatic efforts to resolve the conflict. A spokesperson for the German government made it clear that Chancellor Angela Merkel never spoke "dismissively" of a possible German contribution to the force -- she just spoke with "reserve." Diplomats in Berlin say the creation of an international force won't fail for a lack of soldiers, and Germany is more likely to be involved than not. Still, it could be that Berlin's participation takes on a lower profile than that of other countries.
The news from New York suggests that, in the best case scenario, things could now start happening very quickly. British Prime Minister Tony Blair stated Thursday that he hopes to see an agreement on a resolution within days. Blair said it was a matter of bringing about an immediately effective ceasefire, in order then to create the conditions for an international peacekeeping force to act "in support of the Lebanese government."
Home