Chicago Tribune July 25, 2006
Peacekeeping forces come with mixed record
By Stephen J. Hedges
WASHINGTON - Even as diplomatic chatter builds over the prospects of a new multinational peacekeeping force to prevent further fighting between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon, a lesson or two can be drawn from the United Nations' multinational observer force of about 2,000 soldiers that is already there.
The experience for the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon, or UNIFIL, has not been a good one. In place since 1978 and comprising soldiers from France, Poland, India, Italy and a few other countries, UNIFIL was unable to stop the July 12 Hezbollah border raid that resulted in the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers. It was also unable to block retaliating Israeli troops from entering Lebanon a few days later.
On Tuesday, an Israeli jet bombed one of UNIFIL's observation posts, killing several of its members. UNIFIL has suffered 249 deaths during its deployment, according to the U.N.
UNIFIL's most effective role in the latest crisis has been helping to evacuate citizens, no small task in a war zone where civilian and military targets are closely mingled.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan are expected on Wednesday to discuss - and possibly institute - a new multinational peacekeeping force that could enter the Israeli-Lebanese border region once a cease-fire there is obtained.
But successful prospects for such a force are hardly certain.
"There's a reason that people turn to peacekeeping forces early on," said Anthony Cordesman, a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "It's not a perfect option. It's not even a good option. It's one of the only options."
UNIFIL was deployed after a Palestinian Liberation Organization attack on an Israeli bus and a subsequent Israeli invasion of Lebanon. But its effectiveness has been roundly questioned by Israeli officials, and its role as a peacekeeper is certainly now in doubt.
So is its future; its mandate is scheduled to expire Monday, and so far no members of the U.N. Security Council have formally asked that the UNIFIL mission be extended.
The French may do so later this week, a U.S. government official said.
The mission awaiting a new force, though, may require more authority to act, given the lack of a cease-fire.
"There's no peace to keep," said John Pike, director of Globalsecurity.org, a military analysis group. "There would not be peace to keep until you had persuaded Hezbollah to voluntarily disarm, and they're not going to do that."
Pike and other military analysts suggested that talk of a peacekeeping force is premature. Until fighting has subsided, they argue, or a diplomatic agreement, such as a cease-fire, is reached, the deployment of peacekeeping troops would be premature.
"You don't have an agreement on the mission," Cordesman said. "You haven't negotiated this with Lebanon. You haven't talked to the countries about what kind of rules of engagement they would agree to. And you haven't figured out when this force would arrive and whether there would be any kind of cease-fire."
Rice met with Lebanese President Fuad Siniora on Monday and Tuesday with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas.
A U.S. government official familiar with the issue said that Rice is expected to negotiate and possibly announce the terms of a peacekeeping force during a conference on the Middle East on Wednesday in Rome.
Rice and other U.S. officials have already dismissed the possibility that U.S. forces, heavily engaged in fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, would take part in a multinational security force in southern Lebanon.
Olmert suggested that NATO forces supply troops for the mission, a proposal that a NATO spokesman discouraged Tuesday. NATO currently has forces deployed in Afghanistan and Kosovo, and the heavy U.S. influence within the NATO coalition might make it unacceptable as a peacekeeping force.
A European force, perhaps mixed with some Arab or Egyptian troops, could be a possibility. The Associated Press reported Tuesday that a Turkish Foreign Ministry official said the country would consider playing a major role in peacekeeping, but only if it had a strong U.N. mandate that would define its role and the rules of engagement.
German leaders have expressed only lukewarm support for their military's participation in a peacekeeping mission.
"With or without German troops, the question of whether there is a peace mission will only come once there is a cease-fire," German Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung said Tuesday.
A further unknown is the possible role of the Lebanese military, which by rights could expel Hezbollah from Lebanon. Internal and international pressure forced Syria to withdraw its troops from Lebanon last year, and the U.N. Security Council passed Resolution 1559, which calls for the departure of all foreign forces from Lebanon.
"What's obvious is that if the Lebanese army and Lebanese government made a commitment to disarm Hezbollah or at least made a security zone, it would make a difference," Cordesman said. "So again, what is the role of the Lebanese, how will Hezbollah view the idea of peacekeeping, and what are the terms of engagement?"
© Copyright 2006, Chicago Tribune
