As the Israeli military continues to pressure UN peacekeepers to abandon southern Lebanon, the international community remains apparently hesitant in its response, undermining UNIFIL’s mission.
As American diplomacy seeks last-minute solutions for a ceasefire in Lebanon just before the presidential elections, the Israeli army has increased its pressure against alleged Hezbollah hideouts in southern Lebanon and Beirut.
An IDF bulldozer demolished a watchtower of the UN peacekeeping contingent, UNIFIL, in Marwahin on Sunday, prompting G7 defense ministers to express their “concern in the face of all threats” which weigh on its security and to renew their support for the mission “to ensure the stability of Lebanon”.
“It is likely that the IDF is trying to force the withdrawal of UN forces. The withdrawal of peacekeepers will pave the way for the reoccupation of this territory without the presence of third party elements like UN forces,” said Enzo Moavero Milanesi, former Italian Foreign Minister and professor of European law at LUISS University in Rome, Euronews.
Among European countries, France, Germany, Italy and Spain are the largest contributors of peacekeepers. Last Thursday, a German corvette shot down an overly intrusive drone.
This is why UNIFIL remains an important, even vital, part of the European presence in the Middle East and why European capitals believe they will be under additional pressure depending on what happens to UNIFIL.
“The UNIFIL debacle could turn into a bitter failure for the United Nations. And to some extent, it could also be an alarming failure for Europe, because it would mean the worsening of another conflict very close to its borders,” Mr. Milanesi said.
Rules of Engagement: A Political Firewall
Reinforcing the small garrisons present since 1978, the majority of the UNIFIL contingent was deployed after the summer 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah.
Their mission was to monitor the withdrawal of the Israeli army and to coordinate the disarmament of Hezbollah by the Lebanese army in the region located between the Blue Line – the border between Israel and Lebanon – and the Litani River.
According to Israel, it is clear that the peacekeepers have not done their job properly over the past 18 years and have not stopped Hezbollah from assembling its missile arsenal.
UN forces have also come under fire from Hezbollah on several occasions, notably when trying to prevent its illegitimate military activities in southern Lebanon.
The Israeli accusations are partially based on facts. However, is this a good reason to shoot peacekeepers, and how should peacekeepers behave in the event of a military attack?
UN military peacekeeping missions generally have to deal with contradictions in their mandates that drastically limit the use of force through rules of engagement, French General Olivier Passot told Euronews.
“UNIFIL is not a combat tool, and it has not fought since 1978. And, in this case, it responded randomly,” said Mr. Passot, an experienced former UNIFIL officer on leave. and associate researcher at the French Military School of Strategic Studies (IRSEM).
According to him, a stronger reaction, in this specific case, could have led to an open military confrontation between UN soldiers and the IDF.
“For UNIFIL soldiers, this would have meant taking on the challenge of a real combat operation against an adversary like the IDF. What next?”
ADVERTISEMENT“UNIFIL soldiers do not even have the necessary weapons, they only have light weapons. And it is not part of their mandate to fire anti-tank rockets at the tracks of a Merkava tank,” he said. -he explained.
Despite limited retaliatory powers, peacekeepers have leeway in self-defense, Passot said.
“Self-defense is inherent in the rules of engagement and allows us to respond immediately to shots. The decision is taken at the level of the local section leader. This is the rule,” he explained.
“However, in reality, the section chief must think. They hesitate, because they are afraid of provoking a political incident; and they avoid shooting, even if, theoretically, it is their strictest right.”
ADVERTISEMENTUNIFIL is a multinational coalition made up of soldiers from 50 countries around the world.
Yet when it comes to land operations, the line of command is national, as military activities are typically conducted at the battalion level and overseen by the battalion commander, a colonel bearing the same national and military insignia as the battalion. garrison which took part in the incident.
“If the situation is more complex, the commander must report to the chief of staff who is a few kilometers from the area of the firefight. And it is quite possible that the chief of staff and Commander-in-Chief of UNIFIL will report to the UN Secretary-General in New York,” Mr. Passot said.
“Ultimately, this procedure leaves very limited initiative to the local tactical commander.
ADVERTISEMENTAll EU countries that are part of the UNIFIL maintains cordial, if not excellent, relations with Israel. Opening fire on the Israeli Defense Forces could therefore have undesirable political consequences.
However, the practice of war sometimes requires soldiers to remove any type of obstacle. In some cases, UNIFIL’s positions could be seen by Israelis as a kind of unintentional coverage of Hezbollah militia activities.
According to the IDF command, Hezbollah has built tunnels, hideouts and missile launch pads just meters from UNIFIL outposts.
“Attacking peacekeepers is an act that goes against the spirit and letter of the provisions of the United Nations,” said Mr. Milanesi.
ADVERTISEMENT“If all the evidence necessary to prove non-voluntary or deliberate acts (attacks against UNIFIL) is present, these acts do not comply with UN rules. In this case, the UN can refer to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.
A UN resolution with no future?
Mutual accusations between the peacekeepers and the IDF are rife and extend well beyond the battlefield.
According to Israel, Resolution 1701 has failed to ensure Israel’s security against Hezbollah’s military activities and has become a sort of dead-in-the-water legal document that deprives UNIFIL of any international legal legitimacy to operate in the South. -Lebanon.
However, experts disagree.
ADVERTISEMENT“Concrete action on the ground must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. We should examine the specific rules of engagement of peacekeepers and the purpose of their mission. And only a third party can do that, not the factions directly involved in the conflict,” Milanesi said.
“There is no such thing as an unfounded resolution. Even if they are not implemented, UN resolutions remain binding. The reason why UNIFIL continues its mission is because it is a force of interposition. Only the UN and/or national governments can decide to withdraw troops.
The role of peacekeepers is not only to avoid direct combat with the enemy. They also report on the ground to the international community and to the UN Secretary General, which makes their mission one of information gathering.
“Even if it is not formally written in Resolution 1701, a kind of local and limited informative activity is implicit in the text,” said Javier Gonzalo Vega, professor of international law at the University of Oviedo.
ADVERTISEMENT“Furthermore, the resolution was partially unimplemented, which justifies Israel’s intervention,” he told Euronews.
“The Lebanese authorities should obtain full control of their territory in order to fully respect the commitments. But this did not happen. Hezbollah remained there.”
The discrete role of the liaison branch
Another very relevant function of UNIFIL is rather little known, underlined Mr. Passot.
“The liaison branch ensures communication between the two sides, the Lebanese and the Israelis. They do not speak directly to each other. This function is extremely important in the low intensity phases of the conflict. It has helped prevent hundreds of times the involuntary escalation of the conflict,” explained the French general.
ADVERTISEMENT“Sometimes, small patrols from both sides unintentionally crossed the Blue Line. And on the Lebanese side, there are a lot of civilians wandering very close to the line of contact. UNIFIL soldiers go there, arrest these people and contact their counterparts to let them know that there is no immediate threat,” he illustrated.
This is not the first time that UN military missions have been criticized for their supposed ineffectiveness in conflicts.
During the Bosnian War (1992-1995), the UNPROFOR contingent – which included French, Spanish and British troops – was the target of various attacks from the belligerents, unable to retaliate due to the rules of engagement , recalled Mr. Passot.
“They wanted us to believe that it was their adversary who was targeting us. They infiltrated enemy lines to fire against us. The French troops at Sarajevo airport were systematically under fire,” he said. declared.
ADVERTISEMENT“In the 1990s, it was more difficult to detect the sources of attacks. Sometimes they were snipers, sometimes heavy automatic weapons, sometimes small rocket launchers,” he concludes.
