• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

UN in Lebanon

a_majoor

Army.ca Legend
Inactive
Reaction score
35
Points
560
If this is how Peacekeepers operated in southern Lebanon, then calls for increasing the UN presence or increasing the mandate will be counterproductive at best:

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/004334.html (Digest version)
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_07_16-2006_07_22.shtml#1153523571 (full article)

Kofi Annan And The Kidnappers
David Kopel;

On October 7, 2000, Hezbollah terrorists entered Israel, attacked three Israeli soldiers on Mount Dov, and abducted them Lebanon. The kidnapping was witnessed by several dozen UNIFIL soldiers who stood idle. One of the soldier witnesses described the kidnapping: the terrorists set of an explosive which stunned the Israeli soldiers. Clad in UN uniforms, the terrorists called out, "Come, come, we’ll help you."

The Israeli soldiers approached the men in UN uniforms. Then, a Hezbollah bomb detonated—-apparently prematurely. It wounded the disguised Hezbollah commander, and three Israeli soldiers.

Two other terrorists in U.N. uniforms dragged their Hezbollah commander and the three wounded soldiers into a getaway car.

According an Indian solider in UNIFIL who witnessed the kidnapping, "By this stage, there was a big commotion and dozens of UN soldiers from the Indian brigade came around." The witness stated that the brigade knew that the kidnappers in UN uniform were Hezbollah. One soldiers said that the brigade should arrest the Hezbollah, but the brigade did nothing.

According to the Indian soldier, the UNFIL brigade in the area "could have prevented the kidnapping."

"I’m very sorry about what happened, because we saw what happened," he said. Hezbollah "were wearing our uniforms and it was too bad we didn’t stop them."

It appears that at least four of the UNIFIL "peacekeepers," all from India, has received bribes from Hezbollah in order to assist the kidnapping by helping them get to the kidnapping spot and find the Israeli soldiers. Some of the bribery involved alcohol and Lebanese women.

The Indian brigade later had a bitter internal argument, as some members complained that the brigade had betrayed its peacekeeping mandate. An Indian government investigation sternly criticized the brigade's conduct.

There is evidence of far greater payments by Hezbollah to the UNIFIL Indian brigade, including hundreds of thousands of dollars for assistance in the kidnapping and cover-up.

The UN cover-up began almost immediately.

Read the whole thing - historical perspective for when the wailing begins.

Poorly paid troops, operating under vague mandates are an invitation for disaster. Other UN missions are also plagued by inappropriate behaviour, like the "Sex for Food" scandle in the Congo; in this case the UN forces are able to act as the biggest warlord in the valley, but when faced by a vicious opponent who can fight back, only well trained Western armies can do peace support and peace enforcement (and in recent history, only when under NATO or Coalition , NOT UN mandate and command).

For Lebanon, and by extension any other place where order is breaking down (i.e. Dafur), the solution is not the UN at all, but a robust, professional western military intervention to supress warlordism and support nation building efforts. This resembles the period after the 100 years war, when Royal forces were raised and supported to supress the "free companies" of mercenaries roaming the French countryside.
 
While I am sure that there are many more on this forum with personal experience of the UN in action, but I would suspect that most would agree with me:

1.  UN Peacekeeping does nothing to solve conflicts.  It, at best, keeps a lid on them so that they do not boil over, but that the underlying causes are not addressed. 

2.  In fact, in a number of circumstances, UN involvement exacerbates the underlying problem, because the presence of conflict guarantees that the infusion of UN cash to the region continues.  Think Cyprus.  Or, the bureaucratic tendency to entrench itself causes the conflict to become entrenched.  Think of the UNRWA.

3.  UN Peacekeeping rarely, if ever, establishes rules of engagement sufficient to achieve the aims even as set out within the mission's mandate.

4.  UN Peacekeeping usually results in little more than welfare for third world armies.

5.  UN Peacekeepers often bring their problems with them, introducing new factors into conflict that did not previously exist.  Think of the prostitution problem in Africa.

The fact that the UN is still held in as high regard in the world as it is comes mostly from its lofty and noble founding ideals.  It has little to no correlation to its actual record over the years.

Canadians need to know this sham for what it is.
 
Who would go?
Not the American Zionist Supporting Infidels
Not the Canadians (tapped out)
The Brits?  Aussies? Kiwis?
Germans (I doubt the Israelis would agree)
The French?
 
UNFIL = United Nations Interim Force In Lebanon

UNFIL has been in place since 1978...  "Interim" - heh... ::)  Useless.

Look to NRF 7 and the EU for any potential force.  The "entry brigade" for NRF 7 is, God help me, the Franco-German Brigade...  :blotto:  BTW, the Israelis and Germans get along just fine - no issues regarding deployments...
 
Prodi of Italy is supporting the move.  The Italians were in Lebanon in the 80s with the French and Americans IIRC.  Their troops and carabinieri also seem to have acquitted themselves well in Southern Iraq with the Brits until Prodi pulled them out.

Perhaps the Spanish might be convinced to go in if Prodi sends in the Italians.

Some others (Bloomberg) are speculating about the Turks having a role - no baggage there I suppose.  There again who doesn't have Mid-Eastern baggage.
 
Aren't the Turks the same ethnicity as the Hezbola (sp)?  IE.  Sunni on Sunni or Shea on Shea (SP)?
 
I am not sure about which religious sects are involved, keep in mind that we already have Sunni Hamas cooperating with Shia Hezbollah and Shia Druze cooperating with Jewish Israelis, but I do know that Turks and Arabs are not the same ethnicity.

The Turks moved into Iran in the 1000s and became Muslims.  They then lorded it over the Arabs until Lawrence, Allenby and the fall of the Porte with the exception of the period when their "kissing cousins" the Mongols moved in during the 13th century.  Historically there is little love lost between Arabs and Turks.  The Turks used the Sunni in Iraq to keep the Shia in line.
 
The Turks have a saying: “Better to kick an Arab than a dog”

The Turks would be a good choice, tough and not afraid to kick back, they are close enough to be seen as Non-western, but far enough away to not want to play one side. Plus having Muslims in the army means they can easily enter mosques and such.

I think the Indians could do well if properly led and given good ROE’s

Turks. Indians, Italians with perhaps Germans doing command and comms.
 
Echo9 said:
While I am sure that there are many more on this forum with personal experience of the UN in action, but I would suspect that most would agree with me:

1.  UN Peacekeeping does nothing to solve conflicts.

Was it supposed to?
 
Infidel-6 said:
Yes -- it was to stabilize the situation and promote a solution.

I don't think so.  Certainly something called an "Interim force" doesn't sound like a solution to me...just a way of calming people down while you go about negotiating or creating an actual solution. Stabilization I will buy. Promoting a solution? How does peacekeeping do that?

If we're going to use words like "peacekeeping" let's use them correctly, and not confuse them with peacemaking or peace enforcement which I am led to understand is another thing altogether.

One can't "keep" peace until it is actually created.  Expecting Peacekeeping to be the solution is putting the cart before the horse. Making peace is the solution, keeping it just administration afterwards. 
 
Michael Dorosh said:
Certainly something called an "Interim force" doesn't sound like a solution to me
Interim: "having temporary effect: serving as a temporary measure until something more complete and permanent can be established."

No UN mission is expected to be permanent....they are all what one may call, "interim." Peacekeeping, and indeed, peacemaking, isn't a solution; nor is it intended to be. Both are merely steps towards peace, with the requirement for peacekeepers or peacemakers based solely upon the political will of the combatants.

If we're going to use words like "peacekeeping" let's use them correctly, and not confuse them with peacemaking or peace enforcement which I am led to understand is another thing altogether.
Yes, let's, shall we.

UNIFIL was a "peacekeeping" mission, in that both belligerents had agreed to a ceasefire based upon the UN presence. "Not shooting" + "UN presence" = "peace" "keeping." Their presence was to set a condition for subsequent, more permanent peace, through negotiations. These negotions would not occur had the UN not been present to act as impartial witness to both sides adhering to the agreed ceasefire/peace - - they were not there, nor has anyone but you suggested, that they were there to impose peace. 

By your definition, suggesting that peacekeeping is merely administering in a peaceful environment, is what we call......well, that's "day to day living" in my world. It has nothing to do with the UN, peacekeeping, stability operations, or whatever other buzzwords you choose to misunderstand.

------------
Note: Before you come back with more google/wikipedia wisdom, yes, the UN does have "Permanent Missions." This is merely terminology relating to standing groups, and has nothing to do with a discussion on "interim forces."
 
Not sure what tangents you're choosing to explore, Journeyman. My comments were in regard to this statement:

"1.  UN Peacekeeping does nothing to solve conflicts."

My comment to that is that it isn't supposed to. You only prove my point with your comments. UNIFIL (your example, not mine) was set up after the beligerents agreed to a ceasefire, followed by negotiations.  The latter would be the solution, the peacekeeping merely a means to bring about the conditions necessary for the solution. Peacekeeping doesn't "solve conflicts".



 
This is from today’s Globe and Mail and it is reproduced here under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com//servlet/story/LAC.20060726.COFORCES26/TPStory/Comment/
Hard questions about a NATO force

Given the serious risks involved in Lebanon, a strong mandate is critical, says former diplomat MICHAEL BELL

MICHAEL BELL

Yesterday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper stated he is loath to commit Canadian troops to a possible NATO force for southern Lebanon. This despite an American request to do so -- and our friends in Washington do not take "no" easily. Nor are the Prime Minister's musings that the countries of the Middle East should take upon themselves responsibility for peacekeeping practical. The Arab states are too badly divided both among themselves and within their own borders, their governments too out of sympathy with their own streets, their capacity too limited and their will too weak to make this other than a flight of fancy.

But whatever his preference, the question of Canadian participation is likely to be back on the Prime Minister's agenda sooner than he might wish.

That's because a NATO force is no longer beyond discussion in Washington or among the Western allies now that the Israeli cabinet and military establishment have decided a robust military enforcement mission, composed of relatively sympathetic Western countries, may be in their interest. The Israelis know from the bitter experience of their 18-year occupation of southern Lebanon that despite their current offensive they cannot ultimately control the situation. Since Israel's withdrawal under pressure in 2000, Hezbollah has bounced back and is more lethal than ever. It is likely to rebound again. It will certainly do so as long as the Palestinian dilemma remains a running sore, with the Israelis seen as the occupier and exploiter.

As Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay heads to Rome for meetings with the Americans, Saudis and others, he will carry firm direction from the Prime Minister's Office. But my hunch is Mr. Harper will continue to brood over the question.

The Lebanese government rightly claims Israel has violated its sovereignty and caused suffering beyond any real need. This should, however, be no surprise in the hard-edged world of realpolitik. The Israeli signature, when its soldiers are kidnapped, its cities shelled and its public opinion gripped by fear, is one of relentless force. The first question Mr. Harper, the Americans and our other allies should be asking themselves is whether, knowing the Jewish state's mindset, Israelis will restrain themselves if Hezbollah still finds ways to get at them despite a NATO presence along its northern border. If they do not hold back, as is more than possible, what would an international force do then?

Lebanon's Prime Minister Fouad Siniora maintains that his country's sovereignty should be sacrosanct but, in fact, Hezbollah is the pre-eminent violator of that sovereignty -- not Israel. At best it operates as a state within a state, exercising virtually complete freedom of action, able to provoke international crises at will, with the complicity of the regimes in Damascus and Tehran. Many Lebanese (Christian, Sunni and Alawite) although they will not say it openly, deeply resent these jihadists. The turmoil Hezbollah creates, despite the social welfare services it provides in impoverished southern Shia communities, denies Lebanon's other groups the prospect of normal lives. Western governments should be asking themselves, before making any decision on participation, whether a NATO force could contend with such an unrestrained Hezbollah, determined to provoke Israel.

Hezbollah will continue to be a threat, despite whatever undertakings it might make to get itself out of the current mess. Thus the question of a NATO-force mandate and rules of engagement become absolutely critical. The present UN peacekeeping force in Lebanon, UNIFIL, is seen to have failed not because it has not fulfilled its mandate, but because its mandate is so weak. This cannot happen again -- and advocates of a new force know that. An operation with real teeth, however, will bring real costs in human life if part of that mandate is to disarm a rampant Hezbollah when Israel is threatened. In such a case, this force risks being viewed as an Israeli surrogate or worse, a reincarnation of the Crusades, which may be ancient history in the West but is alive in the modern Arab memory.

All in all, these are solid reasons for the Prime Minister to follow his instincts and the advice of the Department of Defence to stand down -- but whether he will do so remains to be seen. It's a given that any new peacekeeping force will be touch and go. But despite the high risks it may be the only alternative to the present crisis. Certainly, it will be another stop-gap at best.

Ultimately, for peace and stability, there will have to be a political settlement. Western countries, particularly the United States, have not played their hands well. It is both sad and ironic that U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, now in the region with the hope of devising a solution, is not talking to those largely responsible for the present situation, Syria and Iran -- the very countries whose co-operation she needs. This is what happens when ideology trumps pragmatism.

A career in the Foreign Service tells me that if you want solutions you don't cut off lines of communication. It tells me that military solutions rarely solve political problems. It also counsels that sometimes countries have to take risks -- but that these risks are only acceptable when the issues are thought through thoroughly. Finally, it suggests that in some circumstances, there are simply no solutions.

Michael Bell, former Canadian ambassador to Israel, the Palestinian territories, Jordan and Egypt, is Paul Martin (Sr.) scholar on international diplomacy at the University of Windsor. He is chairman of the International Reconstruction Fund Facility for Iraq.

Bell’s key point is a question – and I really hope PM Harper asks it: ”…  is whether, knowing the Jewish state's mindset, Israelis will restrain themselves if Hezbollah still finds ways to get at them despite a NATO presence along its northern border. If they do not hold back, as is more than possible, what would an international force do then?”  In other words: what happens if the NATO force is not ready, willing, able and allowed to fight Hezbollah (and others) for the sovereignty[ of Lebanon?

I, personally, agree that Canada should not participate – not with ground forces, anyway – in a NATO (led?) mission in Lebanon because, I believe, we are already stretched too thin.  We need to ‘stay the course’ in Afghanistan and, as a very high second priority, strengthen our military training establishment in order to recruit and train thousands and thousands of new soldiers to fill the ranks.  Another overseas commitment of land forces will:

• Weaken our absolutely necessary recruiting/training efforts; and

• Add to our personnel retention problems by further over-tasking army personnel.

Despite my views I think Bell may be right when he says: ” It's a given that any new peacekeeping force will be touch and go. But despite the high risks it may be the only alternative to the present crisis.”  If that is the case, if, as Mrs. Thatcher used to say, There Is No Alternative!” then Canada may ‘need’ to join to:

• Encourage other, smaller NATO members (e.g. Denmark, Netherlands, Norway) to also share a heavier load; and

• To help restore our sadly (dangerously) eroded reputation as a responsible ‘middle power.’

To the topic:  I think that anything other than a NATO led force – operating with a UNSC mandate (as we do in Afghanistan) but without any UN involvement - is doomed to make matters worse.  Further, I think:

• Turkey is the logical leader;

• NATO should invite India and Pakistan (and other militarily competent non-NATO nations) to join the force; and

• UNSC permanent members (China, France, Russia, UK and USA) should be restricted to 3rd line logistical support functions only – no troops, not even 2nd line logistics elements, on the ground in Lebanon.  Italy and Spain have both withdrawn from Iraq and may be willing to play major roles in Lebanon – perhaps Brazil, Germany and Japan, too.

What role for Canada?  Maybe as part of a NATO air force (a ‘six pack’ of CF-18s?) in Lebanon?

Edit: spelling

 
While I realize that I did stir the pot with generalities of UN Peacekeeping, I think that if people really read the original news article posted, they would see that imposition of a UN force in Southern Lebanon would be counterproductive.  UN Forces (note the Indians in the story) are not seen as impartial observers, but instead as partisan enablers of Hezbollah.


IMHO, the best route to a lasting peace in the region is to let Israel finish the job- discredit and smash Hezbollah into pieces, following them to Damascus if required.  If Bashar Assad was as smart as his father, it wouldn't be necessary to go to Damascus, but in the current circumstances, it might be.

For those who think that a quick ceasefire is the right approach, please try doing a 3 or 4 turn wargame with the situation and see what would likely end up happening.  If we're not right back here in a few years, then I'll eat my hat.
 
Michael Dorosh said:
Not sure what tangents you're choosing to explore, Journeyman. My comments were in regard to this statement:
"1.  UN Peacekeeping does nothing to solve conflicts."
Well, to point out the obvious (ie - how these quote blocks work), my response was directly and obviously (except to you apparently), tied to your statements
Certainly something called an "Interim force" doesn't sound like a solution to me
and
If we're going to use words like "peacekeeping" let's use them correctly

To which I pointed out, and will repeat this one final time, (since I get much less joy out of trollism than you):
a) Yes, peacekeeping is intended to play a role in solving conflicts - - its utility, and the degree to which it succeeds in its intended role, is completely in the hands of the belligerents,
b) An "interim force" is never intended to be a "solution"; a fact you apparently chose to misinterpret for argumentative value, and
c) I agree terms should be used correctly, which is why I bothered explaining the obvious in the first place.

OK, I'm finished with this one
 
There are a lot of good points here. I think public opinion is going to force the collective hands of many governments on this issue, regardless of the reality on the ground. In the US, the UN is seen as a poor/inneffective choice for leading any sort of peacekeeping force. (Not necessarily what I think) I thought it was sort of interesting, this talk of what an "interim" force is supposed to do. I never took part in any of this sort of operations while I was in the Army, but I always supposed the mission was to separate the two sides of a conflict. If the interim force isn't doing that, what's the point of them being there?

The American public (the portion that knows what's happening there) doesn't have much trust in a UN mission to Lebanon and NATO is being heavily touted as a possible solution. I hadn't thought of the EU as a solution. I don't know a lot about their military structure, but I'm inherently doubtful about it. The idea of a European military force outside of NATO doesn't sit well with me anyway.
 
Just so there is no misunderstanding, I was merely correcting semantics and pointing out painfully obvious errors in logic.

I have no great love for the UN and I, personally, will never, ever, wear a UN beret again. Ever.
 
Quagmire: The great majority of Turks are Sunni Muslims, and as others have pointed out there is no love lost between Turks and Arabs.  I had a very close Turkish friend in Ottawa many years ago who said he liked the Israelis because they knew how to fight the Arabs, who had betrayed the Ottoman Empire during WW I.

Mark
Ottawa
 
Journeyman said:
Just so there is no misunderstanding, I was merely correcting semantics and pointing out painfully obvious errors in logic.

I really take exception to this, as I feel you're the one displaying a lack of logic.  If you can give an example of a conflict in which peacekeeping provided the "solution", I'd be appreciative.  Instead of responding to the questions raised all you've done is make ad hominem attacks by calling me a troll and questioning my intelligence. Peacekeeping implies that two or more "belligerents" are being separated by armed soldiers.  I don't see that as a solution to anything - a "solution" would be a condition in which the armed soldiers were no longer there, ditto the belligerents.  Perhaps we are defining "solution" differently. If you're not capable of discussing this without resorting to insult, perhaps it's just as well you're "done with this." So if you're capable of continuing in a mature fashion, I would be interesting in pursuing the question further - if I was trolling I wouldn't.

Are you saying that an end state in which armed soldiers are separating two armed factions bent on attacking each other is indeed a "solution"? My view is that soldiers shooting at each other is not a problem, but a symptom of a problem. Perhaps you view it differently.
 
Back
Top