With UNIFIL’s departure now all but certain, the question is no longer whether the UN force will remain in southern Lebanon, but who will replace it, and with what powers.
A European-led force and verification committees are under discussion, potentially expanding the international role from monitoring UN Security Council resolution 1701 to verifying exclusive state control over weapons south of the Litani River.
European-led force
Abbas Daher, director of the Center for Media Foresight, told Asharq Al-Awsat that a decision not to renew the UN Interim Force in Lebanon’s (UNIFIL) mandate was now “virtually certain,” despite recent attempts involving Italy to revive efforts for an extension.
“However, President Joseph Aoun’s visit to Italy and the current visit by Lebanese army Commander Gen. Rodolphe Haykal to continue discussions on implementation have effectively opened debate over the force that could succeed UNIFIL, whether in the form of verification committees or a force with a predominantly European composition,” Daher said.
“Discussions are now underway, and European countries, led by Italy, France and Spain, and perhaps Germany, are considering establishing a primarily European force to continue the mission,” he added.
“Efforts are also being made to gain international support for this arrangement.”
As for the verification committees, Daher said there was a proposal for the United States to play a role, particularly in verifying that weapons were under the state’s exclusive control and monitoring implementation. Discussions with Washington remain open, he added.
Italian proposal
Separately, local media reported having reviewed a four-page Italian proposal for the post-UNIFIL phase. The plan calls for a smaller, but more effective international presence focused on supporting the Lebanese army, protecting civilians and backing the mechanism monitoring the ceasefire.
The force could play a role in the disarmament measures, conditional on political approval.
Force’s mission
The debate over the force’s composition is closely tied to questions about its jurisdiction, mission and powers.
Asked how the new force would differ from UNIFIL, Daher said: “UNIFIL’s duties were defined by an international mandate and resolution 1701.”
“Lebanon will insist on replicating the experience or substance of the resolution in defining the nature of its work. The question, however, is whether that will succeed or whether amendments will be imposed, because Washington, under Israeli pressure, wants any committee to have greater executive powers.”
Retired Brig. Gen. Fadi Daoud agreed that the most important issue in the next phase was not limited to which party would replace UNIFIL. Rather, he said, it concerned a change in the nature of the international mission itself and the potential redefinition of the relationship between the new force and the Lebanese army.
“The process of ending UNIFIL’s mission has effectively become a reality, despite Lebanese efforts to secure an extension,” Daoud told Asharq Al-Awsat.
“The central question has therefore become: Who will replace it? The alternative arrangement will be the one that receives US approval,” he added.
“We are moving from peacekeeping forces to verification committees — from a mission linked to resolution 1701 to a different mechanism suited to a post-1701 phase, at least in the form in which we have known it over the past years.”
“Lebanon has no problem with any mechanism for verifying exclusive state control over weapons south of the Litani because it is committed to this issue,” Daher said.
“But the fundamental question is whether Israel will withdraw or remain an occupying force. If verification committees carry out their work, the army reaches certain areas and confirms that they are free of weapons, will Israel uphold its end of the arrangement and withdraw?”
“There must be a clear framework for an Israeli withdrawal, just as there is a clear framework for ensuring exclusive state control over weapons in the south.”
Powers of the verification committees
From a military perspective, Daoud said the scope of the committees’ powers lay at the heart of the debate. The distinction between verifying that the army had completed its mission and helping oversee its implementation could determine whether any new arrangement was viable.
“Will the verification committees’ role be limited to confirming that the Lebanese army has completed the task required of it, or will they take part in overseeing how it is carried out? There is a very significant difference between the two,” he stressed.
“For example, if information is received about a weapons depot at a particular location and the Lebanese army raids the site, will the committee merely receive a report confirming that the mission was completed and verify its outcome? Or will it accompany the military force and monitor the search on the ground using personnel, cameras and communications equipment?” he added.
“This is not a technical detail. It could be the most dangerous issue in any new arrangement because the Lebanese army cannot easily accept a foreign party or an entity outside its military chain of command exercising such close oversight over how it performs its duties or directing it during search operations,” he continued.
“An international body can verify that a mission has been carried out and confirm its results. But moving toward direct supervision of its implementation could create serious and sensitive problems,” Daoud said.
