The UN Security Council is unlikely to produce a resolution capable of assuaging Lebanese and Arab concerns, writes Ayman El-Amir The United Nations Security Council was racing against time yesterday to agree on a resolution that would freeze hostilities in Lebanon and put an end to Israel's month- long murderous campaign against Lebanon. Action on an earlier draft resolution was delayed when Lebanon rejected it as lopsided. Arab foreign ministers, at an emergency meeting in Beirut, decided on Monday to send a four-man delegation to New York in an attempt to inject some balance into the draft. On Tuesday the authors of the French-American draft listened to Arab concerns though there was little to suggest they would accommodate amendments that might restore Arab confidence that the US is interested in more than just the elimination of Hizbullah and establishing Israeli military dominance in south Lebanon. On Monday the Lebanese government announced a bold initiative offering a reasonable basis for ending the conflict. In a surprise move the Lebanese government announced it was willing to deploy 15,000 Lebanese troops in the south as soon as there is a ceasefire and Israeli withdrawal. Making the announcement, the Lebanese minister of information said the army, not Hizbullah, would be in charge of security in the border area, assisted by an enhanced United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) and, in an attempt to preempt US-Israeli objections, said Hizbullah agreed with the plan. The announcement, coupled with the Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Al-Siniora's seven-point plan unveiled at last month's Rome meeting, pulled the rug from under the feet of the US-French draft resolution. The overall thrust of the draft which Nabih Berry, Lebanon's parliament's speaker, the government and Hizbullah all rejected, gave Israel the military victory, on council stationery at least, that it has singularly failed to achieve on the battle-ground after a month of brutal, blood-soaked attacks. The draft resolution called for a cessation of hostilities, not a ceasefire or the withdrawal of Israeli troops, the immediate release of the two Israeli soldiers captured by Hizbullah in the Israeli-occupied Shebaa Farms and the deployment of a robust international force -- most likely a NATO- dominated army in the south -- that would serve as an occupation force overseeing the redeployment of the Lebanese army and the disarming of Hizbullah. A resolution setting out the terms of an Israeli-Lebanese political settlement would only be considered once this is achieved. Critics of the draft say that with no provision for an immediate ceasefire and Israeli withdrawal, Israel would have months to consolidate the few dubious foot-holds it has claimed to have gained in southern Lebanon. Israel would use the cessation of hostilities to extend full military control from the international borderline, the Blue Line, to the Litani River, 30 kilometres to the north, while an international stabilisation force was being assembled. The stabilisation force, to be placed under French, not UN command, would create the demilitarised buffer zone Israel wants, defers, at Israel's pleasure, the resolution of the Shebaa Farms dispute and would seek the immediate, unconditional release of the two Israeli soldiers held by Hizbullah. It would also control the Lebanese army, using it only to disarm Hizbullah, shut off re-supply lines and monitor Syria's border with Lebanon. Arab proposals, summed up by Qatar's Foreign Minister Hamad Bin Jabr Al-Thani, before the Security Council on Tuesday, called for an immediate ceasefire, complete withdrawal of Israeli forces behind the Blue Line, the deployment of the Lebanese army and a strengthening of UNIFIL. He warned that an unbalanced resolution by the council "would further complicate the situation and would have serious repercussions in the region," possibly igniting another Lebanese civil war. Lebanon's envoy, Tarek Mitri, said the proposed draft fell short of meeting Lebanon's legitimate requests and would leave it vulnerable to further Israeli attacks. He demanded a ceasefire, withdrawal of Israeli troops behind the international border and a settlement of the Shebaa Farms dispute. Israeli delegate Dan Gillerman responded with a long serenade about Israeli-Lebanese common interests and friendship in an attempt to drive a wedge between "peaceful" Lebanon and "murderous" Hizbullah. France, a long-time ally of Lebanon and co-sponsor of the draft resolution, was alarmed by Lebanese objections and promised amendments that would take Arab concerns into account. France's permanent representative at the UN said council members were working on some amendments. The US, however, soon echoed Israeli objections to a full ceasefire and withdrawal, contending it would "create a vacuum that would be filled by Hizbullah." Any amended draft is likely to attempt to strike a balance between the initial resolution and its promised follow-up one, calling for a political settlement by setting a time-table. It is not in the council's tradition that any of the veto-wielding members of the council would oppose a call for the cessation of hostilities when a conflict could explode into a regional conflagration. The US, the UK and France agree on the present draft, though some cosmetic changes in the wording may emerge. Russia has little interest in vetoing the resolution and China will not be the odd-man-out though it might abstain. In the UN, it is easier to build on previous resolutions than adopt difficult, ground-breaking ones. Thus, the council, in fulfillment of US and Israeli wishes, is likely to reiterate Resolution 1559, with particular emphasis on its call for the "disarmament and disbanding of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias." US-Israeli objectives in the expanding bloody war do not include preventing the massacre of Lebanese civilians; rather, they are determined to prevent Hizbullah, the irregular Lebanese army, from emerging as a force that has shown itself capable of withstanding the American- Israeli war machine. The implications of that would be far too grave for Israeli military prestige and the so-called new Middle East. But whatever the outcome, the world is unlikely to fail to recognise that Hizbullah has so far given Goliath Israel a bloody nose.
