UN peacekeepers under pressure in Lebanon

The UN peacekeeping mission in southern Lebanon issued a spicy statement yesterday (Sunday), saying “for the fourth time in as many days, we remind the IDF [Israel Defense Forces] and all actors of their obligations to ensure the safety and security of UN personnel and property and to respect the inviolability of UN premises at all times.“

What happened?

The UN Security Council set up the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (Unifil) way back in 1978, after Israel invaded Lebanon in response to a series of attacks by Palestinian groups.

Unifil has been in southern Lebanon ever since, now overseeing the 1000 sq km (400 sq mi) area between the Litani River and the ‘Blue Line’ (the unofficial Israel-Lebanon border).

But after the last Israel-Hezbollah war of 2006, the UN Security Council beefed UNIFIL up to what it is today: 10,000 troops from 50 nations deployed across 50 positions throughout southern Lebanon.

What’s UNIFIL’s objective?

The basic idea has been to maintain a buffer zone between Israel and Hezbollah. That’s meant i) confirming Israel’s withdrawal, ii) ensuring Unifil’s “area of operation is not utilized for hostile activities”, and iii) helping Lebanon re-establish control over the area (from Hezbollah).

But has UNIFIL achieved its mission?

Not really. While Unifil oversaw a brief, fragile peace, Hezbollah further entrenched itself, including in the Unifil buffer zone. And a day after the Hamas attacks last October, Hezbollah fired a volley of rockets at Israel claiming solidarity with Gaza — the two foes have been trading daily fire ever since, while thousands of civilians have fled.

So now, Israel has crossed back into the buffer zone, aiming to enable its own border-adjacent citizens to return home by pushing Hezbollah back behind the Litani River (per the UN’s 2006 demands). As a result, there are now four separate forces in close proximity: Israel, Hezbollah, the Lebanese army (smaller than Hezbollah), and Unifil. Technically, only the latter two should be there.

And that gets us to the above spicy Unifil statement. What happened?

• Wednesday: Unifil says IDF soldiers shot-out a UN base’s cameras
• Thursday: Unifil reported two separate incidents, including Indonesian Unifil soldiers being hurt after an Israeli tank fired towards their tower
• Friday: Unifil reported another four incidents, including two Sri Lankan peacekeepers hurt “after two explosions occurred close to an observation tower“
• Saturday: Unifil says Israeli forces “stopped a critical Unifil logistical movement“
• Sunday: Unifil says two Israeli tanks destroyed another UN base’s gate and entered, then 15 peacekeepers suffered “skin irritation and gastrointestinal reactions” after several rounds landed 100 metres away and emitted smoke.

In response, the UN chief has suggested the above acts “may constitute a war crime”.

Meanwhile, Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu has issued a statement, voicing regret for “the harm caused to Unifil soldiers“, while reiterating Israel’s calls for Unifil forces to evacuate — switching to English, he addressed UN chief Antonio Guterres directly: “Get the UNIFIL forces out of harm’s way. It should be done right now, immediately.“

Why? Netanyahu argues Unifil’s continued presence has now rendered its troops a human shield for Hezbollah, which has continued to launch rockets at Israel this weekend. So Bibi and his supporters say that if Lebanon and Unifil can’t stop Hezbollah, then Israel will.

Is this the first time Unifil peacekeepers have been injured?

No. In fact, Unifil is the UN’s most dangerous peacekeeping mission in history, recording ~337 deaths in its 46 years of operations. Just last year, for example, a Lebanese military tribunal charged five Hezbollah members over the killing of an Irish UN peacekeeper.

And how’s the world reacting?

US President Biden says he’s “absolutely, positively” urging Israel not to hit Unifil forces, while ~40 Unifil member states just dropped a joint statement to “strongly condemn recent attacks on the Unifil peacekeepers“.

INTRIGUE’S TAKE

There are of course fair questions around Unifil’s performance since 2006, but these kinds of peacekeeping woes aren’t new, and they often go far beyond specific missions. Rather, they often reflect the international community’s…

• Bold aims (“just go and demilitarise southern Lebanon”)
• Limited resources (“to do that, here’s a force much smaller than Hezbollah”), and
• Clipped wings (“oh, and here’s a bunch of rules around when you can and can’t use the few weapons we gave you”).

Where does that mixed messaging come from? All of us. It’s the result of an international community that collectively says it wants peace, but disagrees on how that should look, and individually doesn’t want to risk getting pulled into yet another distant strategic quagmire in the process. So peace remains perpetually over the horizon, while this ‘interim’ UN peacekeeping mission just gets more and more permanent.

Also worth noting:

• The UN Security Council just renewed Unifil’s mandate for another year.
• UN peacekeeping chief Jean-Pierre Lacroix has appeared before the UN Security Council, criticising both Hezbollah and Israeli forces for establishing “military installations in the vicinity of UN positions.”
• The largest contributors of Unifil troops are Indonesia (1,231), Italy (1,068), and India (903), while Nepal, Ghana and Malaysia all have 800+ troops, and Spain, France, China each have hundreds more. Unifil is funded out of the UN peacekeeping budget, which cites the US as its top financier.