There’s a tragic irony in the fact that the last paragraph in the ‘Background’ page on the UNIFIL website currently states that the Force’s expanded presence and activity in southern Lebanon since 2006 has been “critical in preventing a recurrence of hostilities across the Blue Line and has helped to establish a new strategic military and security environment” there.
The irony being of course that, right now, the worst crisis in decades engulfs the region, despite the fact that the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon’s mandate has been extended year on year without end. This is, obviously, due to its inability to realise its goals.
Broadly speaking, those goals are the restoration of peace and security in the area and the return of effective authority to the Lebanese Government, out of the hands of Hezbollah, who are the main wielder of power in the south of the country.
Absent that, or rather in pursuit of that, UNIFIL’s mandate includes such activities as “monitoring the cessation of hostilities” and extending “its assistance to help ensure humanitarian access to civilian populations and the voluntary and safe return of displaced persons”.
Another element of UNIFIL’s mandate that has been present in much of the media discussion of late has been the role it has to play in “assisting the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) in taking steps towards 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 Government of Lebanon and of UNIFIL deployed in this area”.
That latter component has often been cited by Israel itself and its supporters as the reason it has decided to send its soldiers into its northern neighbour, claiming that the continued presence of militants in southern Lebanon jeopardises its own citizens, and that absent a Lebanese or an international solution, it’s taking the matter into its own hands.
Leaving the rights or wrongs of the situation aside, the decision to maintain a ‘peacekeeping’ presence there in light of all of this strikes me as absolutely absurd, and if a member of my family were currently deployed in the midst of the warzone, I would be – I think justifiably – furious.
Of the few items in UNIFIL’s mandate I cited above, the only ones Irish troops are currently in a position to work on or towards are, and you hear these cited all the time from those who argue to justify the Defence Forces’ ongoing presence there, “monitoring” and trying to ensure humanitarian access and aid reach the local population.
I say “currently in a position to work on or towards”, but the truth is, their ability to carry out these tasks has been severely constrained by the fiery circumstances they find themselves in. According to UNIFIL spokesman, Andrea Tenenti, they are unable to carry out that role currently.
One must imagine that the possibility to facilitating or carrying out humanitarian aid has been likewise limited as, referring to the situation around UN Post 6-52, which has been the centre of concern in recent days due to the close proximity of Israeli activity, the Defence Forces said “road access has been curtailed due to these military actions, leading to the recommendation that sheltering in place remains the safest option at this time”.
With that being the situation, it’s not at all clear why we don’t swap out our soldiers, who have many functions they could be effectively redeployed towards, with NGO workers, who similarly exist to observe and offer humanitarian assistance. Indeed, it seems to me that the main difference between the two – in relation to their capabilities in the present situation – is the armour-plated nature of the former. But still, that only does so much good in a hot conflict, as the extensive precautions the soldiers are having to take indicates.
This is by no means to be taken as a criticism of the troops, who are behaving precisely as they’ve been trained to and drawing only compliments from the international community, but the deployment nevertheless is doing little diplomatically but offering our statesmen another opportunity to put their foot in it. Just this week, President Higgins was rebuked by UNIFIL for claiming that Israel had “threatened” the peacekeepers, Irish included, stationed in its way.
Speaking on Monday, Mr Tenenti said that while a request was made by Israel that the UN withdraw its troops from posts close to the blue line, no threats were made. On Morning Ireland, he said, “We have not received threats. And, again, also reminding them of their obligation to protect our bases and installations but, so far, we have not received threats”.
While yesterday’s news that the IDF has withdrawn its soldiers from the immediate vicinity of the aforementioned Post 6-52 where Irish personnel are based will have come as an immense relief to those implicated military families, I’m sure it’s done little to dispel the concerns they have about their loved ones sitting – fairly vulnerably – in the middle of the latest development in one of the world’s fiercest conflicts.
I’m well aware that the members of the Defence Forces stationed overseas have been trained for situations just such as these, and that they also, rightly, take great pride in the work they do over there. But for now, it is hard to view this peacekeeping deployment as little more than idealistic ‘peaceseeking’, one that recklessly endangers the lives of Irish men and women, without much concrete benefit to the people of southern Lebanon.
I also appreciate the idea that their presence there is intended to be a symbol of the value we place on the protection of human life, but with people having emptied out of southern Lebanon in significant numbers and the fury between the combatants intensifying, one wonders whether the obstinate refusal to pull the Defence Forces out at the same time sends a different signal. One that, once again, places ‘international obligations’ above the simple, concrete things we could do for the benefit of the Irish men and women in the country’s care.