Trump authorities seek to discontinue United Nations peacekeeping operations in Lebanon, drawing resistance from Europe.
The UN peacekeeping operation in Lebanon, known as UNIFIL, is set to expire at the end of August, and the United Nations Security Council is expected to vote on a resolution to renew or terminate UNIFIL's mandate. However, a disagreement between the US and its European allies has arisen over the duration and future role of the peacekeeping force.
The core disagreement arises from US-driven pressure to shorten UNIFIL’s mandate and link it to Hezbollah disarmament, while European allies and Lebanon advocate for a longer-term presence to ensure ongoing peace and stability.
The US supports extending the UNIFIL mandate for only one more year while preparing for a possible withdrawal, reflecting a desire to transition security responsibility fully to the Lebanese government. US envoy Tom Barrack stated that the US would approve a one-year extension but noted the force costs about a billion dollars annually.
On the other hand, European nations, particularly France and Italy, are advocating for a one-year extension of UNIFIL followed by a six-month wind-down period. Lebanon, meanwhile, has requested a two to three years renewal to maintain stability and assist the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF). UNIFIL has played a critical role in security and humanitarian operations in southern Lebanon, and the presence of European contingents reflects their interest in continued stability.
Negotiations have been complicated by the US pushing for a pathway that would involve Hezbollah’s disarmament, linking continued UNIFIL presence to progress on this issue. Hezbollah has rejected disarmament demands, citing ongoing Israeli military activity and occupation of Lebanese territory. This creates a political deadlock since the US seeks to condition future UNIFIL mandates on Lebanese government commitments on this front, while Hezbollah and some Lebanese officials resist.
Israel has reluctantly agreed to an extension of UNIFIL, according to administration officials and congressional aides. However, prematurely ending UNIFIL could create a vacuum that Hezbollah could exploit, as per the European argument. The Lebanese army is not yet fully capable of securing the border area without UNIFIL, according to European arguments.
UNIFIL was created to oversee the withdrawal of Israeli troops from southern Lebanon after Israel's 1978 invasion and was expanded following the 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah. Hezbollah supporters in Lebanon have frequently accused the UN mission of collusion with Israel and have sometimes attacked peacekeepers on patrol.
This disagreement reflects broader geopolitical tensions in the region and differing priorities among the UN Security Council members. The US aims to wind down and end UNIFIL as soon as possible, viewing it as a waste of money that hinders the elimination of Hezbollah’s influence. European nations, on the other hand, argue that prematurely ending UNIFIL before the Lebanese army is able to fully secure the border area would create a vacuum that Hezbollah could easily exploit.
[1] Trump administration to wind down UN peacekeeping mission in Lebanon [2] U.S. and France at odds over UN peacekeeping force in Lebanon [3] U.S. pushes for conditions on UN peacekeeping force in Lebanon [4] UN peacekeeping mission in Lebanon faces uncertainty [5] UN peacekeeping mission in Lebanon faces uncertain future
Read also:
- Weekly happenings in the German Federal Parliament (Bundestag)
- Southwest region's most popular posts, accompanied by an inquiry:
- Discussion between Putin and Trump in Alaska could potentially overshadow Ukraine's concerns
- Massive 8.8 earthquake hits off the coast of Russia's Kamchatka Peninsula, prompting Japan to issue a tsunami alert.
