Some basic Lebanon facts

Cengiz Aktar for TDN

Tuesday, September 5, 2006

The matter of sending troops to boost the U.N. force in Lebanon caused a bigger stir than it deserved.

UNIFIL won't fight:
In the last article, I had noted that the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) was an undisclosed peace enforcement operation. I had written that Resolution 1701's articles 8 and 11 clearly note this fact and that the difference of emphasis was due to the failure to base the force on the U.N. Charter's Chapter 7, which would have tied the hands of the warring sides and the international community.
The United Nations' Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) presented a draft on the “rules of engagement” for UNIFIL to all U.N. members on Aug. 19. The document says UNIFIL is allowed to “assist the government of Lebanon, at its request, in securing its borders and other entry points to prevent the entry in Lebanon without its consent of arms or related material and use forceful means, including deadly force, to do so.”
The confusion lessened somewhat after the rules of engagement were published by the media, but the main issue now is how the UNIFIL command will interpret the use of deadly force.
The UNIFIL is similar to the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) operation in Bosnia. UNPROFOR did not have much use and just stood by as Serbs killed tens of thousands of Bosnians and Croats. Things deteriorated so much that its abbreviation gave the inspiration for it to be described as the “Force Protecting United Nations.”
Additionally, in order to get an idea about the United Nations' prestige among Hezbollah supporters, one can just take a look at the treatment accorded Secretary-General Kofi Annan on his last trip there. The United Nations is seen as a neutral interlocutor by neither Lebanon nor any other Arab country. It is known as a body guided by the United States and the West in general. This is due to both the unwillingness and inexperience of Arab and Muslim countries when it comes to multilateral policies and relations and to the United Nations' somewhat biased and somewhat ineffective presence in the region.
In conclusion, the U.N. force will not get involved in clashes, not because it lacks any clear rules on its duties but because it is a U.N. force.

Will it do any good for Lebanon?
As a result, the troops will protect themselves first and foremost and will not get involved in clashes. UNIFIL will not disarm Hezbollah nor will it be able to prevent weapons and ammunition from being smuggled into the country. It will only help in the reconstruction of the buildings and infrastructure destroyed by Israeli bombs. The contribution of the U.N. force to the Palestinian issue will be a huge zero.
U.S. efforts to encourage the maximum number of countries to take up the gendarmerie duties neither they nor Israel can do will not amount to anything because the force in question is a U.N. force.
At the end of the day neither Lebanon nor Palestine nor Israel nor the wider Middle East will profit from this operation in any tangible way in terms of permanent peace.

What are Turkey's interests?
If we put the brotherhood and heroism stories aside, the only things left are the theses that our country's influence will be felt in the region and will be praised by the United States and the European Union. The expectation and agendas of the United States and the EU are very different. The United States sees us as a local gendarme, while the EU emphasizes Turkey's secular/Muslim identity.
At an EU meeting at the end of August, Germany, Greece, Belgium, Denmark, France, Finland, Spain, Sweden, Italy, Latvia, Poland and Portugal promised to give troops to the force. Bulgaria is still considering. Despite the constantly noted military importance of Turkey, it wasn't invited to attend this meeting. It is said that French President Jacques Chirac, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi called Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and asked for troops for the force.
Is it possible for the EU, which is remembered by the United States only when financial assistance is on the agenda and is ignored otherwise, to fill the gap? Even though this new role will not become real very soon, the tremendous loss of prestige suffered by the United States may provide an opportunity for the EU. The possibility of Turkey finding a place for itself in this context seems like the best prospect. If there is to be a permanent peace in the Middle East one day, it won't be through the confrontation approach tested since 1948 but rather through the “soft power” of the EU based on economic integration and dialog. Our country's regional weight, which currently is largely an illusion, can become fact through its EU membership.
There is a claim that by sending troops to Lebanon we will mend our relations with the EU. Turkey is sending troops to the EUFOR force in Bosnia, led by the EU. This did not help, nor did it hurt, our EU process. The same is true for UNIFIL.
As of today, Hezbollah continues to refuse to release the two Israeli soldiers it kidnapped. Israel refuses to disclose the maps of the cluster bombs it used in Lebanon nor has it ended the blockade of the Lebanese coast. Lebanon says it is impossible for it to introduce a stringent inspection mechanism on its border with Syria, which is cited, without names, in Resolution 1701 as the major transit point for weapons going to Hezbollah. This picture won't change with the deployment of UNIFIL.