UNIFIL: Bigger, Larger, and Still Just as Ineffectual As Ever

UNIFIL's mandate is set forth in UN SCR 1701, 1559, 425, and 426, and yet the UNIFIL commanders and even Kofi Annan refuse to fully implement those Security Council resolutions. They're far more concerned about hurting the feelings of Hizbullah, which is not only a terrorist group, but an armed militia that was supposed to be disarmed pursuant to those resolutions because it not only threatens the territorial integrity of Lebanon, but because those resolutions specifically state that all militias are to be disarmed and the Lebanese military is supposed to be the sole armed force in Lebanon.

One month after a United Nations Security Council resolution ended a 34-day war between Israel and Lebanon’s Hezbollah militia, members of the international force sent to help keep the peace say their mission is defined more by what they cannot do than by what they can.
They say they cannot set up checkpoints, search cars, homes or businesses or detain suspects. If they see a truck transporting missiles, for example, they say they can not stop it. They cannot do any of this, they say, because under their interpretation of the Security Council resolution that deployed them, they must first be authorized to take such action by the Lebanese Army.

The job of the United Nations force, and commanders in the field repeat this like a mantra, is to respect Lebanese sovereignty by supporting the Lebanese Army. They will only do what the Lebanese authorities ask.

The Security Council resolution, known as 1701, was seen at the time as the best way to halt the war, partly by giving Israel assurances that Lebanon’s southern border would be policed by a robust international force to prevent Hezbollah militants from attacking. When the resolution was approved, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, one of its principal architects, said the force’s deployment would help “protect the Lebanese people and prevent armed groups such as Hezbollah from destabilizing the area.”

But the resolution’s diplomatic language skirted a fundamental question: what kind of policing power would be given to the international force? The resolution leaves open the possibility that the Lebanese Army would grant such policing power, but the force’s commanders say that so far, at least, that has not happened.

Ed Morrissey has more, though I disagree that we've returned to the UNIFIL that we've known for the past 28 years. That UNIFIL has never left. It only grew larger, while the leadership at the UN has done nothing to actually implement the resolutions and provide guidance to the troops on the front lines as to what they're supposed to do when confronting Hizbullah. And Ed correctly observes that if UNIFIL doesn't start fulfilling its obligations, then it might find itself in the crossfire should the Israelis change leadership and the Israelis demand Hizbullah turn over Goldwasser and Regev or else face renewed conflict.

Gateway Pundit has more on the situation in Lebanon, including the fact that not everyone in Lebanon favors Hizbullah.