UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL): Vote on Final Mandate Renewal and Drawdown*
This morning (28 August), following the briefing on Haiti, the Security Council is expected to vote on a draft resolution extending the mandate of the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) for a final time until 31 December 2026, and “to start an orderly and safe drawdown and withdrawal from 31 December 2026 and within one year”.
France, the penholder on Lebanon, shared a first draft of the resolution with Council members on 15 August. Members discussed elements of the text during the 18 August closed consultations on UNIFIL. Following an informal negotiation meeting on 19 August, the penholder circulated a first revised draft on 21 August and put it under silence procedure until the following day (22 August). Silence was broken by the US. On 26 August, France put a second revised draft under silence procedure, which passed yesterday afternoon (27 August). A vote was subsequently scheduled for today.
The negotiations on the draft resolution proved difficult. It appears that the main contentious issue was whether, when, and how the Council should request UNIFIL to cease its operations and start its drawdown and withdrawal.
Established by the Security Council in 1978, UNIFIL was most recently renewed through resolution 2749 of 28 August 2024, which extended the mission’s mandate until 31 August. It seems that, in the lead-up to the negotiations on UNIFIL’s mandate renewal, the US informally indicated its position that the mission should be shut down within a maximum period of one year and that it sought for the draft resolution to provide a clear date to that effect.
It appears that this position sharply contrasted with that of the penholder and the other Council members, none of whom approached the negotiations seeking the termination of UNIFIL. On the contrary, several members—including France, Panama, and Slovenia—had clearly expressed support for the mission’s mandate at the 23 July open debate on “The situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question”.
In an apparent overture to the US, the zero draft of the resolution extended UNIFIL’s mandate until 31 August 2026 while also indicating the Council’s “intention” to work on the mission’s withdrawal. The draft text specified, however, that work on a withdrawal was conditional on the government of Lebanon fully controlling all Lebanese territory, and “the parties agree[ing] on a comprehensive political arrangement”. This language apparently reflected the view of the penholder and other Council members that the situation on the ground, rather than a specific date, should determine when UNIFIL’s mandate should end.
It appears that the US demanded that this language be replaced by text extending UNIFIL’s mandate for a final period of 12 months (that is, until 31 August 2026) and requesting UNIFIL to begin a safe and orderly drawdown to be completed by the same date. The US also requested that the drawdown be followed, starting on 1 September 2026, by a liquidation period lasting no longer than six months. It further asked for several smaller amendments to the text to reflect that the mission would be drawing down, such as deleting from the preambular section language on UNIFIL’s liaison and coordination mechanism.
It seems that several Council members had concerns regarding the US position and believed that the conditions on the ground required that the mission remain fully operational for at least another year. It seems that many members were of the view that Lebanon appears to be on a positive trajectory, with the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF), supported by UNIFIL, consolidating their presence in the south of the country, and recent steps by the government towards disarming Hezbollah. These members apparently maintained that shutting down the mission in one year would be premature and could undermine progress, given that UNIFIL would have to begin to wind down its regular operations to focus on drawing down shortly after its reauthorisation. It seems that some members were also concerned about sending conflicting messages to the country, as one part of the draft resolution welcomed Lebanese authorities’ efforts towards establishing sovereignty over Lebanon’s whole territory, while another section requested UNIFIL to begin drawing down at a time when the LAF was not yet ready to assert full control.
For its part, the US apparently maintained that the LAF had made sufficient progress and that it was ready to take on its responsibilities without UNIFIL’s support. At the same time, at least some Council members believed that the US position was strongly informed by Israel’s stance. Before the negotiations, US officials had expressed critical views on UNIFIL. In his 28 May rescission proposal to Congress, US President Donald Trump accused the mission of failing “to contain Hezbollah”, citing this as a justification for rescinding contributions to UN peacekeeping activities more broadly. (In a recent op-ed, Under-Secretary-General for Peace Operations Jean-Pierre Lacroix explained that UNIFIL “was never mandated to disarm Hezbollah”, but to assist Israel and Lebanon in implementing resolution 1701 of 11 August 2006.)
In an apparent compromise, the first revised draft retained language indicating the Council’s intention to work on the mission’s withdrawal, provided that the Lebanese government fully controlled all Lebanese territory, and the parties agreed on a political arrangement. It added, however, a request to the Secretary-General to produce a strategic review to assess “the conditions of a withdrawal of UNIFIL” with the objective that the drawdown started no later than 31 August 2026. It also requested that the strategic review explore options for the future of the implementation of resolution 1701 after UNIFIL’s withdrawal. This still fell short of the US demand, however, leading this member to break silence on 22 August.
The second revised draft, which is the version that passed silence and is currently in blue, includes definite language on the timeline for UNIFIL’s drawdown and no longer features references to a strategic review. It extends UNIFIL’s mandate as set out in resolution 1701 “for a final time” until 31 December 2026. On this date, the Council requests UNIFIL to cease its operations “and to start from this date and within one year its orderly and safe drawdown and withdrawal of its personnel”. It also decides that UNIFIL’s liquidation shall begin after the ending of the drawdown and withdrawal phase.
The draft text establishes several functions that UNIFIL, “in cooperation and consultation” with the Lebanese government, is authorised to fulfil during the drawdown and withdrawal period. Among others, these include the provision of security for UN personnel, facilities, convoys, and equipment and associated personnel; the maintenance of situational awareness near UNIFIL locations; and contributing to the protection of civilians.
The draft text in blue also requests the Secretary-General to explore, by 1 June 2026, “options for the future of the implementation of resolution 1701” following the withdrawal of UNIFIL, including regarding “assistance in respect of security and monitoring of the Blue Line and the ways to enhance the support to the LAF redeployment” south of the Litani River through the UN’s “tools”. (The Blue Line is a withdrawal line set by the UN in 2000 to confirm Israel’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon. While not 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.) The text also urges the international community to intensify its support to the LAF and includes language, based on a request by Algeria, calling for economic assistance to Lebanon to help facilitate the reconstruction.
The draft resolution in blue demands the full implementation of resolution 1701 and welcomes the 26 November 2024 cessation of hostilities arrangement between Israel and Lebanon, while noting with grave concern the “continuous violations of this arrangement”, including “air and drone strikes on Lebanese territory”, a reference that the US had sought to remove during the negotiations. A request from Slovenia to call on all parties to comply with international humanitarian law was also included.
The draft resolution in blue also calls on the government of Israel to withdraw its forces north of the Blue Line and on the Lebanese authorities to deploy to these positions “with the time-bound support of UNIFIL”, and to extend the control of the government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory.
_______________________________________________________________
**Post-script: On 28 August, the Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 2790, extending the mandate of the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) for a final time until 31 December 2026. The resolution calls on the mission “to start an orderly and safe drawdown and withdrawal from 31 December 2026 and within one year”.
