Can the UN force hold peace in the Middle East?

Against the background, the deployment of UN troops has not been easy. The European Union appears to be leading the UNIFIL. However the UN will decide whether France or Italy will lead the peacekeeping mission.

On August 22, the UN envoy, Terje Roed-Larsen, on a visit to Israel warned that the ceasefire would remain "fragile" for the next two or three months, although the cease-fire holds tenuously despite being challenged by a number of violations by Israel.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

Why should peacekeeping be difficult?
There are many reasons but some of the following deserve mention:

First, the Lebanese-Israeli conflict is a part of the bigger discord that involves the Palestinian-Israel conflict. This is one of the world's most intractable conflicts running since the creation of Israel in 1948. Israel has been a rogue nation in the region, illegally occupying Palestinian land, Syria's Golan Heights, and Lebanon's Shebaa farms for several decades.

Second, The UN seeks troops from Muslim majority nations. But Israel has refused to accept troops from countries that do not recognize Israel. This is an unreasonable stance, but Israel can get away with it with the support of the US. The offer from Muslim countries, such as Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, to provide troops to the UN peacekeeping team hangs in the air.

The issue of non-recognition of Israel by states willing to allow their troops to join the UN force has nothing to do with the implementation of the UN Security Council resolution of 1701. The resolution does not impose such conditions.

Third, there is a confusion about the rules of engagement of UN troops as to whether they are to implement the role of peacekeeping or of peacemaking. There is a vast difference between the two. The first one is to hold peace already made and the second one is to make peace where peace has not been achieved. In the first case there is no use of force by UN troops, while in the second there is the likelihood of use of force to make peace between the warring parties.

Fourth, if the mandate is to disarm Hezbollah, then peacekeeping will be difficult. Unless this aspect of the mandate for the UNIFIL is made abundantly clear, UN troops cannot exactly know the rules of engagement. Another issue is the organization of the chain of command within the UN troops including clarification of who should report to whom, and what is the safety zone for the UNIFIL.

Fifth, the initial hesitancy of France to provide troops was prompted by the fact they had suffered substantial losses (58) in a Hezbollah suicide attack in 1983 in Beirut.

Sixth, Israel, stung by the defeat in the Lebanese war, wants to show its military might and violated the cease-fire by sending commandos into Lebanon. The UN declared it to be a gross violation of the UN resolution. No one can prevent Israel from carrying out such violations except the US, but the US administration has kept mum about such violations. It is only Italy that has warned Israel not to violate the ceasefire.

Seventh, the Israeli demand that UNIFIL be deployed on the Lebanese-Syrian border was rejected by Syria. Syria's President, Bashar al-Assad, told Dubai TV that deployment of UN troops on the border would be "a negation of Lebanese sovereignty and a hostile act."

In the light of Syria's rejection, it would be difficult for the UN to follow the resolution concerning the transfer of weapons from Syria to Lebanon.

Israel must recognize that Syria is a major player in the region and shares a long border with Lebanon. Israel should sit at the negotiating table to discuss its withdrawal from Syria's Golan Heights.

Pathetic response from Britain and US
It is sad to witness that the role of Britain, which ruled half of the Middle East for years, has been marginalized under Prime Minister Tony Blair. He has a bigger problem to handle at home.

His botched foreign policy in the Middle East has cut down support for his Labour Party to 31 per cent, the lowest since 1987, while the main opposition, the Conservative Party, has gained support, rising to 40 per cent, its strongest since 1992. Only one percent of voters, in a survey by the Guardian/ICM poll, thought Blair's actions in the Middle East had made Britain safer.

As regards the US, President Bush on August 21 urged rapid deployment of an international force to protect the fragile ceasefire. He reportedly said: "The need is urgent. The first thing is to get the rules of engagement clear so that the force will be able to help the Lebanese."

But the fact is that the Bush administration can help the UN to hold the cease-fire if it restrains the Israeli government from violating the cease-fire by its military actions on Lebanon. It is pointless underscoring the urgency of the deployment of the UNIFIL if Israel acts contrary to the UN resolution.

Israel's renewed commitment not to violate the ceasefire is the first step, and then only can the UNIFIL hold peace. It seems that the Bush administration has abdicated its responsibility and leadership in this crisis, partly because of its low esteem in the region and partly because of its blind support for Israel.

Given the complexity of the issues, it appears that a new UN resolution, that could make the role of the UNIFIL clear, may be necessary so that they can hold the fragile peace between Lebanon and Israel.

Barrister Harun ur Rashid is a former Bangladesh Ambassador to the UN, Geneva.