UN Peacekeeping in Lebanon – Ongoing Challenges

The recent escalation of violence in Lebanon has reignited discussions on the effectiveness of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL). Established in 1978, UNIFIL was mandated to maintain peace and assist the Lebanese government. However, its ability to fulfil these roles has been severely questioned, especially following the surge in hostilities since October 2023. The civilian toll has been catastrophic, with thousands killed and injured. This situation raises critical questions about UNIFIL’s presence and effectiveness in Lebanon.

Historical Context of UNIFIL

UNIFIL was created under UN Security Council Resolutions 425 and 426. Its primary objectives were to confirm Israel’s withdrawal from Southern Lebanon, restore peace, and assist the Lebanese government. Over the years, its mandate has evolved, especially after the 2006 war, which saw an increase in troop numbers and expanded responsibilities. Despite these changes, UNIFIL has struggled to enforce its mandate effectively.

Recent Attacks and Failures

In the latest conflict, UNIFIL has come under direct fire from both the Israeli army and Hezbollah. The UN has described some of these attacks as deliberate. Despite being armed and authorized to defend itself, UNIFIL has not engaged in direct combat against Israeli forces. This raises concerns about its operational capabilities and the safety of its personnel.

Impact on Local Communities

The local perception of UNIFIL is complex. Many communities view the force with suspicion. Some Lebanese believe that UNIFIL operates as a proxy for Israeli interests. This mistrust has been exacerbated by incidents where UNIFIL troops have been accused of using aid to manipulate local populations. Conditional aid projects have further alienated communities, leading to resentment towards the peacekeepers.

International Accountability and Future Prospects

The international community’s response to Israel’s actions has been inadequate. There are calls for troop-contributing countries, particularly European nations, to hold Israel accountable for its aggression. The recent ceasefire presents an opportunity to reassess UNIFIL’s role. However, without a genuine commitment to protecting Lebanese civilians, the force’s future effectiveness remains uncertain.

UNIFIL’s Operational Limitations

UNIFIL has consistently faced limitations in its operational mandate. While it is tasked with disarming non-state actors, such as Hezbollah, it has failed to achieve this goal. The ongoing presence of armed groups undermines UNIFIL’s credibility and effectiveness. The inability to protect civilians from external aggression marks a critical flaw in its operational framework.

Ceasefire and Diplomatic Efforts

The recent ceasefire agreement aims to implement UNSC Resolution 1701. This resolution calls for the withdrawal of Israeli forces and the establishment of a secure environment. However, the success of this ceasefire depends on the commitment of all parties involved. Without addressing the underlying issues of occupation and aggression, lasting peace remains elusive.

Future of Peacekeeping in Lebanon

The future of UNIFIL is uncertain. Without a fundamental change in its mandate and the political dynamics in the region, its capacity to maintain peace will remain compromised. A shift towards genuine accountability and protection for civilians is essential for any hope of stability in Lebanon.

Questions for UPSC:

1. Examine the effectiveness of UN peacekeeping missions in conflict zones and the challenges they face.
2. Discuss the impact of international law on state sovereignty in the context of peacekeeping operations.
3. Critically discuss the role of non-state actors in modern conflicts, using the Lebanon-Israel situation as an example.
4. With suitable examples, discuss the relationship between humanitarian aid and political influence in conflict areas.

Answer Hints:

1. Examine the effectiveness of UN peacekeeping missions in conflict zones and the challenges they face.

1. UN peacekeeping missions aim to maintain peace, protect civilians, and support political processes.
2. Challenges include limited mandates, lack of resources, and the need for consent from host nations.
3. Operational effectiveness is often hindered by the presence of armed groups and ongoing violence.
4. Peacekeepers frequently face hostility from local populations, leading to mistrust and operational risks.
5. Historical failures, such as in Lebanon, highlight the limitations of peacekeeping forces in preventing conflict escalation.

2. Discuss the impact of international law on state sovereignty in the context of peacekeeping operations.

1. International law establishes the framework for peacekeeping, emphasizing state sovereignty and non-interference.
2. Peacekeeping operations often require host state consent, which can limit their effectiveness.
3. However, international law also allows for intervention in cases of gross human rights violations.
4. The balance between respecting sovereignty and protecting civilians creates tension in peacekeeping missions.
5. Legal immunity for state leaders complicates accountability for violence against peacekeepers and civilians.

3. Critically discuss the role of non-state actors in modern conflicts, using the Lebanon-Israel situation as an example.

1. Non-state actors, like Hezbollah, influence the dynamics of conflict, often challenging state authority.
2. In Lebanon, Hezbollah’s military capabilities complicate UNIFIL’s mandate to disarm non-state entities.
3. These actors can provide social services and support to local populations, gaining public loyalty.
4. Their involvement can lead to escalated violence and complicate peace negotiations.
5. International responses to non-state actors vary, with some being labeled as terrorist organizations, affecting diplomatic relations.

4. With suitable examples, discuss the relationship between humanitarian aid and political influence in conflict areas.

1. Humanitarian aid can be used as a tool for political leverage, influencing local governance and community dynamics.
2. In Lebanon, UNIFIL’s conditional aid projects have created resentment among communities, viewed as manipulative.
3. Aid can sometimes reinforce existing power structures, favoring certain groups over others.
4. Examples include the use of aid to gain access to communities or to promote specific political ideologies.
5. The interplay between aid and politics can undermine the neutrality of humanitarian efforts, complicating conflict resolution.