French-Libyan sparring holds up UNIFIL mandate extension
Experts say debate unlikely to hinder progress
As the deadline looms for the UN Security Council to renew its peacekeeping mandate in south Lebanon, reports are emerging of diplomatic disunity that threatens to undermine its operations in the country. The mandate of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), stipulated by Security Council Resolution 1701 – drafted to end Israel’s war on Lebanon in the summer of 2006 – has been up for discussion since the beginning of the month.
However, member states in New York have differing opinions on draft articles relating to what Secretary General Ban Ki Moon labeled “serious violations” of 1701.
The pan-Arab daily Al-Hayat reported on Tuesday that both Britain and the US had pledged their support to the initial draft, overseen by French representatives. It calls for UNIFIL’s mandate to be renewed for another year, leaving its rules of engagement ostensibly unchanged.
However, As-Safir, quoting a “diplomatic source” in Washington, indicated that both France and Libya – the Security Council’s only Arab member – were holding out for an article citing “concerns about violations of Resolution 1701 and particularly the dangerous violation referred to the UN Secretary General’s letter.”
UNIFIL deputy spokesman Andrea Tenenti told The Daily Star: “We haven’t received anything official concerning [the discussions] because consultations are of course ongoing, but I have seen media reports.
“The announcement will be on Thursday and only then will we know for sure.”
He reiterated UNIFIL’s support for the mandate extension, based on “recommendations from the secretary general.”
Tenenti also pointed out that there had been “other media reports” saying that the Security Council had reached “a conclusion on the mandate without any change.”
Earlier this month, Ban wrote to the Security Council and recommended an extension of UNIFIL’s mandate “without amendment.” He also cited recent security incidents, including the explosion of a suspected Hizbullah arms cache near the southern village of Khirbet Silim and protests near the Blue Line at Kfar Shuba as violations of Resolution 1701.
Libya had reportedly insisted that if the “dangerous violation[s]” were included in the draft, then incessant violations of Lebanese airspace by Israeli warplanes would also need to be mentioned.
Former long-term UNIFIL adviser Timor Goksel told The Daily Star that any article on violations would need to include those perpetrated from both sides of the Blue Line.
“You can’t refer to violations from one side; you cannot pick your violations. If you want to mention Khirbet Silim and Kfar Shuba you need to mention all the other [violations] of 1701,” he said.
Libya also expressed reservations on article two of the draft which calls on all parties to cooperate with UNIFIL to “reach an understanding over Ghajar,” according to As-Safir.
Ghajar, situated in the occupied Golan Heights region, straddles the Blue Line and its residents have Israeli identification cards.
Earlier this month, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman dampened speculation that Israel was about to compromise its stance on the village. “There is no arrangement here. All of Ghajar is under Israeli sovereignty,” he said. “Therefore there will be no concessions.”
As-Safir reported Tuesday that several countries had called for an article to be included in the draft encouraging Israel to reach an understanding with the Lebanese government concerning Ghajar.
Goksel said the debate was not of a significant nature, and was unlikely to hinder progress.
“These are not operational issues and they are not too important. It doesn’t define what action is required, it’s [more] making political plays,” he said.
“This is just scoring brownie points with the UN. Operative paragraphs are the important thing and I don’t think that anyone will change them.”
“I don’t see anyone trying to create a dispute,” he said.
The Security Council’s decision is expected on Thursday and Tenenti confirmed that UNIFIL was “not expecting a change in the mandate.”