How far can a strengthened UNIFIL protect Lebanon? Serene Assir seeks answers from Beirut Truth be told, there are few bodies Arabs trust less than the United Nations. The demonstration at the UN's Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA) in downtown Beirut after news broke of the massacre at Qana 30 July bore testament to this fact, as did reactions to the UN's issuing of a resolution calling for the cessation of hostilities rather than a ceasefire. But the Lebanese understand, also, that it is the fact that veto-wielding United States has historically gone to any lengths to protect Israel, its partner in a very "special relationship", that has created a near-perpetual paralysis in the UN regarding any matter of concern in the Middle East. One of the conditions in UN Security Council Resolution 1701 was to create an enlarged, strengthened UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL). While UNIFIL used to count on 2,000 troops, the goal now is to reach 15,000, just over half from European Union member states. Despite marked tardiness and much reticence by EU states to actually commit troops or take the lead, it appears that at long last UNIFIL is beginning to take the shape the UN and some of the international community would like it to -- though for a variety of reasons. Through the past fortnight, troops have been arriving, slowly, from France and Italy, two countries that will swap the leading role in 2007. Majority Muslim countries eager to help out from the first will provide 7,000 of the total number of troops. As for actual deployment, it appears that it is on its way. "Deployment will take place in three phases," said Alexander Ivanko, UNIFIL spokesman in Naqoura, South Lebanon. "The first [phase], which is expected to take place in the next week or two, will involve 3,000 to 4,000 Italian troops. We have yet to see when the next two phases will be implemented." As for UNIFIL's mandate, which has been a cause of some concern in Lebanon, it appears that it is little more than an enlarged UNIFIL as was before Israel's war on Lebanon. "UNIFIL has the right to defend itself," said Ivanko. How it uses that right "depends on the situation", he added. This is not new, said Timur Goksel, who served with UNIFIL from 1973 to 2003 as chief political advisor. "UNIFIL has always had the right to defend itself, by force if necessary. It simply depended on commanders' instructions how that right was implemented," he added. More often than not it wasn't implemented. Most recently, during the 34-day onslaught by Israel, five UNIFIL members were killed in a 14-hour bombing of their base. The most UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan could do was issue a vaguely worded response while accepting Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's apologies, despite the fact that those at the UNIFIL compound issued repeated calls from their clearly marked building to stop the unrelenting artillery and eventual rocket assault. Now, the role of UNIFIL, along with 15,000 Lebanese troops being deployed in South Lebanon, seems to carry a greater significance than ever given the sheer brutality of Israel's attacks through the 34-day war, costing up to 1,300 Lebanese lives. For Goksel, a significant part of the UNIFIL's mandate is to protect Lebanon. "UNIFIL is not a buffer force between Lebanon and Israel -- it is a force in Lebanon," Goksel said. "Its presence in Lebanon is in part aimed at providing protection for Lebanon from Israel." Goksel went on to add that the fact that this time round Europeans were set to form the backbone of the force granted greater weight to UNIFIL's capacity to protect Lebanon from possible Israeli attacks in future. "Israel is not likely to attack Lebanon with the presence of European troops," he said. Of course, another major part of UNIFIL's mandate is to make sure there are no armed groups inside South Lebanon other than the Lebanese army and itself. "UNIFIL has the right to disarm anyone found armed in South Lebanon, by force if necessary," Goksel said. "Hizbullah has agreed to the clause demanding that there be no armed groups in the south, as stipulated by Resolution 1701." But scepticism remains the order of the day for many. "Why are they deploying even more forces in Lebanon?" asked Essam, a 40-year-old resident of Bint Jbeil, much of which was wrecked by Israeli fire. "We are the ones who need protection, not Israel." He went on to explain that, as he saw it, the expanded UNIFIL force seemed to him to constitute a return, of sorts, to colonial days, when European armies roamed Lebanon at will. "I am worried," he said. Perhaps he is right to be. The expanded UNIFIL force will have to show its capacity to prevent a continuation of breaches of Lebanese territorial integrity this time round, and to mark a path for itself that does not bring back memories of repeated breaches following the Israeli withdrawal in 2000. "The Lebanese army, though expanded, cannot protect us from Israeli planes. As this war showed, only Hizbullah can," Essam said. "I know, because I live on the border, that this is not the last time that Israel will attack Lebanon. It will happen again and again." For now, in spite of numerous Israeli breaches of Resolution 1701, Hizbullah is holding back from responding. Time will tell whether UNIFIL and the Lebanese army can fill the potentially enormous gap in protection for Lebanon from Israel. Otherwise, it'll be back to square one.
