Why did UNIFIL not respond to Hezbollah activities nearby in violation of Resolution 1701?
Material
The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) is deployed in the south of the country to act as a buffer with Israel. It effectively calls for the implementation of Security Council Resolution 1701, which ended the war between Israel and Hezbollah in 2006. This resolution aims for the cessation of hostilities on both sides of the border and provides that only forces maintaining security UN peace and the Lebanese army be deployed in southern Lebanon.
This text allowed the deployment of the Lebanese army along the border previously held by Hezbollah. But the party has maintained a presence in the region, where it has, according to experts, dug a major network of tunnels.
In 2020, the UN demanded from Lebanon access to these tunnels – which constitute a violation of resolution 1701 – under the “blue line”, which marks the border between the two countries, in vain. After 2006, shooting and tensions between Israel and Hezbollah continued to occur, albeit sporadically, until further escalation in October 2023.
UNIFIL is primarily responsible for supporting humanitarian work, but it can also “decide on any necessary action regarding the deployment of its forces, in order to ensure that its area of operations is not used for hostile acts”.
She regularly calls on the belligerents, who entered into open war three weeks ago, to cease hostilities. With the start of the Israeli army’s ground incursions into southern Lebanon at the end of September, it was caught in a vice. She now accuses Israeli troops of shooting “repeated” et “deliberate” on its positions having injured four peacekeepers in two days.
UN resolution 1701 summary
Analysis: UNIFIL’s Response to Hezbollah Activities in Violation of Resolution 1701.
As I delve into the recent news article regarding UNIFIL’s response to Hezbollah activities near the Lebanese border, I am compelled to explore the intricacies of the situation and provide an analysis of the possible reasons behind UNIFIL’s actions.
Firstly, it is essential to understand the context and significance of Resolution 1701, which was adopted by the United Nations Security Council in 2006. This resolution aimed to establish a ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon, following a month-long conflict [[2]]. A crucial aspect of the resolution is its call for a zone free of armed personnel, except for the Lebanese army, in an effort to maintain stability and sovereignty in the region [[3]].
However, the statement from UNIFIL itself seems to directly address the issue at hand, stating that “Any crossing into Lebanon is in violation of Lebanese sovereignty and territorial integrity, and a violation of resolution 1701” [[1]]. This indicates that UNIFIL is indeed aware of the activities and is acknowledging their illegitimacy.
So, why did UNIFIL not respond to these activities? There could be several reasons for this. Firstly, UNIFIL’s mandate is primarily focused on monitoring and reporting ceasefire violations, rather than proactively engaging with parties involved. This limited scope may restrict UNIFIL’s ability to take decisive action in response to violations.
Moreover, as a peacekeeping force, UNIFIL must tread a fine line between maintaining its neutrality and avoiding escalation. In this delicate environment, any action taken by UNIFIL could potentially exacerbate the situation, which might be counterproductive to its primary objective of maintaining stability.
Another factor to consider is the complex geopolitical landscape of the region. Hezbollah, a prominent player in Lebanese politics, is known to wield significant influence in the region. This may hinder UNIFIL’s ability to take robust action, as any move perceived as anti-Hezbollah might jeopardize UNIFIL’s credibility and undermine its ability to function effectively.
while UNIFIL’s response to Hezbollah activities in violation of Resolution 1701 may seem inadequate, it is essential to consider the complexities of the situation. UNIFIL operates within the constraints of its mandate, and any actions taken must be carefully calculated to avoid destabilizing the already fragile regional dynamics.
References:
