UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL): Vote on Mandate Renewal*
This morning (28 August), the Security Council is expected to vote on a draft resolution extending “the present mandate” of the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) for one year, until 31 August 2025. UNIFIL was most recently renewed through resolution 2695 of 31 August 2023, which extended the mission’s mandate until 31 August 2024.
The short draft text reaffirms the Council’s commitment to, and demands the full implementation of, resolution 1701, which in 2006 reshaped UNIFIL’s mandate in light of the war between Israel and Hezbollah and called for a cessation of hostilities between the parties. The draft resolution in blue also stresses “the importance of, and the need to achieve, a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East”.
Following the outbreak of the war between Israel and Hamas on 7 October 2023, near-daily exchanges of fire across the Blue Line between Israel and Hezbollah and other armed groups in Lebanon have continued, with the intensification of strikes in recent months and intense exchanges of fire on 25 August raising concerns about the possibility of an all-out war. (The Blue Line is a withdrawal line set by the UN in 2000 to confirm the withdrawal of Israeli forces from southern Lebanon. While not representing an international border, the Blue Line acts in practice as a boundary between Lebanon and Israel in the absence of an agreed-upon border between the two states.) For background on the situation in Lebanon and the war in Gaza see, respectively, the brief on Lebanon in our August 2024 Monthly Forecast and brief on “The Middle East, including the Palestinian Question” in our July 2024 Monthly Forecast.
In a 24 July letter, the Secretary-General recommended that the Council renew UNIFIL’s mandate for one year, noting Lebanon’s 24 June request for a one year extension and for the mandate to be renewed in accordance with resolution 1701 and “without any amendments to its mandate, its concept of operations and its rules of engagement”.
France, the penholder on Lebanon, shared a first draft of the resolution with Council members on 16 August and introduced the text during the 19 August closed consultations on UNIFIL. Following an informal negotiation meeting on 20 August, the penholder circulated a first revised draft on the following day (21 August), which was discussed during a second informal negotiation meeting on 23 August. France then circulated a second revised draft on 26 August and placed it under silence until yesterday morning (27 August). Silence was broken by the US, after which several members sent comments. Shortly after, the penholder put a third revised draft directly in blue. A vote on the draft resolution—which was originally expected for tomorrow (29 August)—was scheduled for this morning.
France opted for a concise text which diplomats have been referring to as a straightforward renewal or a technical rollover. (The term “straightforward renewal” refers to a short text stating that a peace operation’s mandate will be carried out in accordance with a previous resolution or previous resolutions in which the mandate is elaborated in more detail. “Technical rollover” is also used to describe a concise resolution extending a peace operation’s mandate without altering its core mandate or tasks, but it traditionally denotes an extension for a shorter period than is customary.)
It seems that this year, France chose to propose a short text in light of the changed situation on the ground and in order to promote a focused approach on issues such as the exchanges of fire across the Blue Line and the need for de-escalation. This approach was also apparently taken to avoid negotiations running aground because of issues that have proved contentious in the past, such as language pertaining to UNIFIL’s freedom of movement. (For more information on last year’s negotiations, see our 31 August 2023 What’s in Blue story.)
It appears that a significant area of discussion during the negotiations was language calling for a restoration of the cessation of hostilities across the Blue Line. It seems that, citing ongoing diplomatic efforts and the changing situation on the ground, the US asked at first to delete, and later to qualify, language that in the first draft of the resolution “demand[ed] a restoration of the cessation of hostilities across the Blue Line”. This reference was in a paragraph that also called for the full implementation of resolution 1701 and reiterated the Council’s “support for full respect for the Blue Line”.
Noting that language demanding a cessation of hostilities was based on agreed language from resolution 1701, other Council members apparently did not find text demanding the re-establishment of a cessation of hostilities along the Blue Line problematic and supported its inclusion in the draft resolution. It seems that some members interpreted the request by the US, Israel’s closest ally on the Security Council, as being motivated by wanting to avoid restricting Israel’s ability to fight against Hezbollah through the inclusion of a direct demand for a cessation of hostilities.
It seems that several options were put forward during the negotiations in an attempt to find a compromise on this issue, including proposals from Algeria and the US. The draft resolution in blue does not “demand” a restoration of the cessation of hostilities across the Blue Line. Instead, language from the first draft was amended to reiterate the Council’s “strong support for full respect for the Blue Line and full cessation of hostilities” and demand the implementation of resolution 1701. Text recalling “the objective of a long-term solution based on the principles and elements set out in paragraph 8 of resolution 1701” was also included in the same paragraph. (These principles include the full respect for the Blue Line, the absence of foreign forces in Lebanon without the consent of the Lebanese government, and “security arrangements” such as 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 Lebanese government and UNIFIL.)
A separate paragraph was also added to the draft resolution during the negotiations urging “all relevant actors” to implement de-escalation measures, “including with a view to restoring calm, restraint and stability across the Blue Line”. The addition of this paragraph, which addresses the current escalation separately from the paragraph restating the framework established by resolution 1701, was perceived by some members as an attempt to mitigate the concerns expressed by the US.
The length of the mandate was also a major issue of contention during the negotiations. It seems that the US initially called for a six-month renewal instead of the one year proposed by the penholder. All other Council members apparently supported renewing UNIFIL’s mandate for 12 months, with some observing that this would send a needed message of support and stability to the mission and the region.
Following the 23 August informal negotiation meeting, the US apparently put forward proposals for language that would have linked a one-year renewal to expressing the Council’s intention to revisit UNIFIL’s mandate to support diplomatic initiatives on the ground. Other members apparently interpreted these suggestions as referring to a US initiative to achieve de-escalation and to bring Israel and Lebanon to a negotiation process over disputed areas along the Blue Line. In one such proposal, the US apparently requested the inclusion of language that would have expressed the Council’s intention to “further enhance” UNIFIL’s mandate to “strengthen the force to help enable the full implementation of any future diplomatic understanding between the parties”.
It appears that most Council members opposed this proposal, which was not reflected in the draft text put under silence on 26 August. Several members were apparently critical of the late stage in which the US suggested this amendment, noting that the proposed language would have implications for UNIFIL’s mandate beyond the scope of a technical rollover. It seems that some members were also uncomfortable with the Security Council linking the mandate renewal to an agreement that is yet to materialise and the conditions and format of which they were not privy. It appears that this was the main issue over which the US broke silence yesterday.
The draft resolution in blue extends UNIFIL’s mandate for one year without expressing the Council’s intention to adapt the mission’s mandate in light of possible future agreements reached by the parties. At the same time, the draft text features a paragraph encouraging “the Secretary-General to ensure that UNIFIL remains ready to adapt its activities to support de-escalation, within its mandate and its rules of engagement”.
Language on Lebanon’s borders was another area of discussion. The first draft of the resolution featured language from resolution 1701 reiterating the Council’s support for Lebanon’s territorial integrity, sovereignty, and political independence “within its internationally recognized borders, as contemplated by the Israeli-Lebanese General Armistice Agreement of 23 March 1949”. (The March 1949 armistice agreement between Israel and Lebanon said that the “Armistice Demarcation Line should follow the international boundary between Lebanon and Palestine”.)
It seems that the US demanded the deletion of the reference to Lebanon’s internationally recognised borders and the armistice agreement, a request that some members apparently interpreted as being put forward to grant Israel more leeway in future negotiations on the Israeli-Lebanese border. Algeria apparently opposed the deletion of these references, however. In an apparent compromise, the draft resolution in blue reiterates the Council’s strong support for Lebanon’s territorial integrity, sovereignty, and political independence “based on the principles and parameters set out in resolution 1701”.
Several members apparently requested and obtained the inclusion of language on international law in the draft resolution. While an earlier version of the text included a broader reference to the conflict parties’ obligations under international law, this was later apparently narrowed to a reference to international humanitarian law to accommodate a request by the US. The US also requested but did not obtain the inclusion of language condemning Hezbollah.
It seems that some members regretted that the short text did not include any of the language featured in resolution 2695 on women, peace and security (WPS) and environmental issues, with one member apparently raising this issue during the 19 August closed consultations. At the same time, it seems that members opted for not proposing language on these issues during the negotiations.
____________________________________________________________________________________
*Post-script: On 28 August, the Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 2749, extending the mandate of the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) for another year, until 31 August 2025.
