cnjournal

On 11 Aug 2006, with echoes of the unimplemented Security Council (SC) Resolution 1559 still ringing in their ears the diplomats at the UN agreed to the following wording for SC 1701:

Let’s look at the relevant portions of the pap that passes for action at the UN.

Paragraph 8 of the resolution, “Calls for Israel and Lebanon to support a permanent ceasefire and a long-term solution based on the following principles and elements:

-- security arrangements to prevent the resumption of hostilities, including the establishment between the Blue Line and the Litani river of an area free of any armed personnel, assets and weapons other than those of the Government of Lebanon and of UNIFIL as authorized in paragraph 11,” and further,

-- full implementation of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, and of resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006), that require the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon, so that, pursuant to the Lebanese cabinet decision of 27 July 2006, there will be no weapons or authority in Lebanon other than that of the Lebanese State;

Why am I not convinced that a single AK 47 or rocket launcher will ever be taken from the Hezbollah terrorists?

Here’s why.

First the French who brokered the ceasefire with the USA made a big to-do about the 7,000 troops it would commit to the UN effort alongside the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF). But wait, next Chirac through his Foreign Minister postures that without “minimum guarantees” (Chirac – Times article) they will only muster up an additional 200 troops to augment the French UNIFIL contingent.

Could the memories of the murder of the 58 French paratroopers at the hands of Hezbollah while in their barracks in Beruit have been on Jacques mind? That’s right this attack was done at the same time as Hezbollah hit the US Marine barracks killing some 250 US soldiers.

Nevertheless, and no matter how valid the concern of repetition, scorn, derision and other kinds of abuse from all sides was heaped on the heads of the French.

Yet, even then I maintained some hope that the real intent was as stated – that this was a French attempt to get tough ROE for the force, up to and including agreement to add the ‘robust’ Chapter 7 – meaning UNIFIL is authorized to apply deadly force to implement the resolution.

Although the evident need for such capability must have been in the minds of the French leadership, the possibility that it would come into force was dashed from the first days following the resolution: first the Lebanese Defence Minister Mur said he would never even dream of disarming Hezbollah and Nazrallah flatly proclaimed it would never be considered as long as the IDF was still in South Lebanon.

Spin forward to when the Italians step up to the plate and pledge 3000 troops to the force as well as offering to take the leadership of the force should the UN so wish. At the time of the Italian pledge there was no word one way or another as to the detail of the ROE.

Feeling the international heat over its decision the French scrambled. In a brief comment that could not have passed unnoticed by President Chirac, President Bush in effect quite simply said - that’s the French for you. 

As befitted their self-image as the keepers of “La Gloire” and in the name of France, Chirac, in a display of Grand Arrogance then called on the other Europeans to belly up to the bar. A meeting was held in Brussels with Kofi Anan and the Foreign Ministers to arm twist for more troops.

Fast forward again to the article in The Times Online, 26 Aug and these current developments:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2329025,00.html

“We can now begin to put together a credible force,” Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-General, said after a meeting with European Union foreign ministers in Brussels.

However, he ruled out demands for the UN force to disarm Hezbollah, which sparked the 34-day conflict with Israel when it seized two Israeli soldiers last month. “It is generally accepted that the disarmament of Hezbollah cannot be done by force,” he said. “The troops are not going there to disarm Hezbollah, let’s be clear on that.”

 

Oh, OK, but Dear Mr. Sec-Gen, what about the resolution just passed? If the troops are not going to do the job, pray tell, who will? Or, have I missed it again and what Sec State Rice said is really true – Hezbollah will do it voluntarily? Wonder what the IDF thinks of that…

Still there is some good news too out of Brussels:

“The French President was rebuffed in his attempt to maintain his country’s leadership of the UN operation. General Alain Pellegrini, the French commander, will see out his term in charge of the existing Unifil, a force seen as toothless, but Mr. Annan asked Italy to take control of the expanded mission in February after Rome pledged up to 3,000 troops.”

“European ministers said that they had agreed to send troops only after winning a guarantee from Mr. Annan on clear rules of engagement to avoid the indecision that hampered UN peacekeeping in the Balkans. But Hezbollah’s disarmament appeared to remain unresolved, with European military planners suggesting that their role was to help the Lebanese Army to undertake the task, even though it may be ill-equipped and unwilling to do so.”

As incredible as it seems from this Times story, we learn that “European ministers said that they had agreed to send troops only after winning a guarantee (emphasis added) from Mr. Annan on clear rules of engagement…”

Well, well, well. A kiss and a promise from Kofi on the ROE issue and “voila”, the French are convinced enough to commit two battalions (up to 2,000) to the force!

One begins to wonder just when the propitious moment will come when Kofi will actually honour this guarantee and finally commit to the force ROE. For an objective observer, wasn’t the Brussels meeting the obvious moment to at a minimum put in place the required authority as seen from the European perspective? Evidently not.

Once again, the yawning gap between diplomatic realities and facts on the ground leads me to these conclusions:

- the UN never intended to implement the disarmament portion of SC 1559;

- the UN never intended to implement the disarmament portion of SC 1701.

Worse, the Blue Line (the IDF pulled back south of this line when it unilaterally withdrew from the buffer area of Southern Lebanon that it had occupied ever since chasing the PLO out of Beruit in 1982) a UN agreed and sanctioned demarcation line for the Lebanese/Israeli border is again open for ‘consideration’.

Specifically, the Shaaba Farms area at the intersection of the Syrian/Lebanese/Israeli border is to be looked at as per the ludicrous demand from Lebanese PM Siniora (the seven point plan).

Even by the dismal UN standards this is a low point and it again begs the question, when will the UN be put out of business?

Perhaps widespread knowledge of the next part of this obscene ballet will do the trick.

At this link, http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/622bqwjn.asp

If true - it is all taken from public records and so is likely accurate – not only is the UN stale dated, but the very entity trusted by the world community to be scrupulously impartial and fair, the same UNIFIL that is currently bulking-up to perhaps 15,000 is aiding and abetting Hezbollah against Israel by the provision of intelligence information about IDF movements, equipment and strength.

In war time those who provide such help to the enemy are called traitors and the penalty for those caught is death.

It makes me sick.

 

cn 

On 2 Sept 2004, the UN Security Council (UNSC) adopted resolution 1559 with typically high-minded rhetoric designed to make it appear that the UNSC was actually doing something to help resolve the smouldering issue of restoring full sovereignty to the State of Lebanon.

The language of the resolution positions the views of the SC by the usual reiteration of its “grave concern” and by recalling all previous statements and resolutions; it concludes with its request to the Secretary-General to report on the implementation and to remain “actively seized of the matter”.

Here is part of the theoretical basis for the SC 1559 solution as seen by the diplomats.

    1.     Reaffirms its call for the strict respect of the sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity, and political independence of Lebanon under the sole and exclusive authority of the Government of Lebanon throughout Lebanon;

    2.     Calls upon all remaining foreign forces to withdraw from Lebanon;

    3.     Calls for the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias;

    4.     Supports the extension of the control of the Government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory;

What an empty and meaningless pile of bilge.

Essentially from then until now, the UN did nothing to support these four points and worse, totally failed to respond to the clear build up of arms and control of Southern Lebanon by Hezbollah. In fact, the non-state militia of Hezbollah was allowed to flourish from the moment of the pull-out by Israel in 2000.

In the 1559 referenced report of the Sec-Gen, the following conclusion was reached with respect to the disposition of the Shaaba Farms area:

“When UN surveyors marked the Blue Line between Lebanon and Israel in the summer of 2000 after Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon, they determined that the Shaaba Farms villages were on the Israeli side, that is, on land that will be the subject of peace negotiations between Israel and Syria (my underline -cn) at some time in the future.”

“On 15 May 2000, the United Nations received a map, dated 1966, from the Government of Lebanon which reflected the Government's position that these farmlands were located in Lebanon. However, the United Nations is in possession of 10 other maps issued after 1966 by various Lebanese government institutions, including the Ministry of Defence and the army, all of which place the farmlands inside the Syrian Arab Republic. The United Nations has also examined six maps issued by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic, including three maps since 1966, which place the farmlands inside the Syrian Arab Republic.”

However in typical Middle-East fashion and since Israel's withdrawal, “Hezbollah has kept the dispute over Shaaba Farms boiling with assertions that they have evidence supporting Lebanese claims to the land. This gives them a pretext to attack Israel for holding land Hezbollah still considers to be part of Lebanon; that is, they claim Israel has not yet withdrawn from all of Lebanon.”

Roll forward almost two years to the present UNSC resolution, 1701 and surprise, surprise, the Shaaba Farms is back on the agenda: the draft resolution says the SC will “take due note” of  “the proposals made in the seven-point plan regarding the Shebaa farms area”.

This is the relevant para in the Siniora 7 point plan:

 “c- A commitment from the Security Council to place the Shebaa Farms area and the Kfarshouba Hills under UN jurisdiction until border delineation and Lebanese sovereignty over them are fully settled.”

Just wondering - how do you think the SC will “take due note” of this request from Siniora. Far as I can see the issue is as “fully settled” as it could possibly be. On the other hand this conclusion is based on my North-American logic and will no doubt be seen as quite inadequate to deal with Middle-East logic.

This in spite of the following clear statement by the UN Sec-Gen, January 20, 2005 in his UN report on Lebanon:

 "The continually asserted position of the Government of Lebanon that the Blue Line is not valid in the Shab'a farms area is not compatible with Security Council resolutions. The Council has recognized the Blue Line as valid for purposes of confirming Israel’s withdrawal pursuant to resolution 425 (1978). The UN Security Council has repeatedly requested that all parties respect the Blue Line in its entirety."[5].(Middle East Intelligence Bulletin - MEIB).  The official position of the UN has always been that Resolution 425 required Israeli forces to withdraw to the pre-1978 line of separation, that is, to the 1949 Armistice Demarcation Line (ADL ).

Until recently, successive Lebanese governments explicitly endorsed this position - the 1949 ADL was considered sacrosanct. In fact, the 1989 Ta'if Accord which established the Second Lebanese Republic explicitly calls for adherence "to the truce agreement signed on March 23, 1949" and implementation of Resolution 425.

So, why has this issue reopened?

To say that the dispute was simply a pretext used by Hezbollah and Syria to justify its continued attacks on Israel and the Israeli Defence Force (IDF), is to state the obvious. In its assessment of the claims and counter claims to the area, the UN relied on all known maps dating from as early as the French mandate period beginning in 1921.

Interestingly, on 17 April, 2000 when Israel advised the UN of its intention to withdraw its forces in full compliance with UNSC 425, the Sec Gen dispatched his special Middle East envoy, Terje Roed-Larsen to “verify that both sides were in agreement on the conditions required by Resolution 425. Upon arriving in Beirut, the UN team encountered an eleventh hour objection from Lebanese officials. As a UN report later characterized the incident, "the Government of Lebanon informed the United Nations of its new position regarding the definition of its territory." This new territorial claim had never before even been mentioned by a representative of the Lebanese government.”

A reply to this new fabricated claim was not long in coming.

“On May 22, 2000 UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan gently rebuffed the Syrian/Lebanese claim in his report to the UN Security Council and recommended that the line separating the areas of operation of UNFIL and the UN Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) in the Golan Heights (which would exclude the Shebaa Farms) be used for the purposes of determining Israel's compliance with Resolution 425. His justification for this decision merits a direct quotation:

    “This UNIFIL-UNDOF line coincides with the border line most commonly found on maps issued by the Government of Lebanon, including those published after 1966. This line has also been accepted by the Government of Lebanon for 22 years in the context of the UNIFIL area of operations. In addition, this same line was approved by the Governments of Israel and the Syrian Arab Republic in their 1974 Disengagement Agreement.”


On 16 May, 2001 on the recommendation of the Sec Gen, the SC decided to reduce the UN force, UNIFIL, from 5600 to 2000 troops and “subjected the Lebanese government to remarkably unequivocal criticism for its stance on the Shebaa Farms.” The reduction of UNIFIL according to MEIB was, “largely the result of the Lebanese government's unwillingness to recognize the UN blue line and its refusal to allow peacekeepers to deploy at key areas along the border, most notably at the Fatima Gate.”

Afterwards, Security Council president James B. Cunningham stated that members of the council were "deeply concerned by assertions that the Blue Line is not valid in the Shebaa Farms area. This area is governed by UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, which are applicable to the occupied Syrian Golan."

This should have put paid to the Lebanese tale that in an oral agreement with Syria in 2000, the Shaaba area was given to Lebanon. After all, and according to the Lebanese claim, “there are no international records of the boundary adjustment since Lebanese and Syrian officials decided not to register it with the UN.”(MEIB)

“In fact, the officials in Beirut were unable to produce any documents concerning the transfer. One senior government source in Beirut later explained that this was because the border adjustment was "a kind of oral agreement" between the two countries and "nothing was documented specifically." (MEIB)

How convenient!

I am reminded of the old saying about oral agreements not being worth the paper they are printed on!

One might wonder why such a status for Shaaba was claimed by Lebanon.

Some clues are noted here in opinion.jpost.com of 30 July 2006:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=2&cid=1153292036524&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Syria had to bend over double to try and reconcile the competing pressures: to have formally handed the territory over to Lebanon would have been a clear and official declaration that Lebanon is indeed a sovereign state and thus nullify the Syrian position that Lebanon is really just part of Greater Syria. Syria has never accepted Lebanon as a separate, independent, sovereign state hence the absence of formal diplomatic relations between the two countries.

If the final wording of the resolution incorporates any reference to the Shaaba Farms area it should be accompanied by a statement from Syria that the area in dispute belongs to Lebanon.

Don’t hold your breath.

For some and seemingly including the USA, the Shaaba Farms area (Mount Dov) is seen as bargaining chip that might be tossed Lebanon’s way. Following the Rome Conference 26 July 2006, the presentation of his 7 point plan, PM Siniora took the opportunity to express , "Lebanon's demands that for so many years part of our country is still occupied, which is represented by the Shaba Farms, which [is] still occupied [by] Israel.”

Evidently the idea of resurfacing this issue was brought forward by UN envoy Terje Roed-Larsen in Jerusalem in the week before the Rome meeting 26 July. Seems to me that the Lebanese claims to Shaaba made to this same envoy in 2000 in an 11th hour attempt to pull the farms area into the Lebanese fold (see above) found a true believer. It is only amazing that in spite of the UN’s clear factually based declarations about the proper legal disposition of the area, this position was missed or ignored by Larsen and crew.

How perfect a case this is to demonstrate the UN’s craven unprincipled and abject submission to the terrorists and their toddies.

Disgusting and I predict, dangerous.

cn