The Security Council today extended the mandate of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) until 31 August 2024, as speakers debated the matter of the Force being allowed access to some areas around the Blue Line.
Adopting resolution 2695 (2023) (to be issued as document ) – by a recorded vote of 13 in favour to none against, with 2 abstentions (China, Russian Federation) – the Security Council decided to extend the present mandate of UNIFIL for a period of twelve months, until 31 August 2024.
By the text, the Council reiterated its call for the Government of Lebanon to present a plan to increase its naval capabilities as soon as possible, including with appropriate support from the international community, with the goal of ultimately decreasing UNIFIL’s Maritime Taskforce and transitioning its responsibilities to the Lebanese Armed Forces.
Further, the Council condemned all violations of the Blue Line – both by air and ground – and strongly called on all parties to respect their obligations under international law as well as the cessation of hostilities, to prevent any violation of the Blue Line and to respect it in its entirety, and to cooperate fully with the United Nations and UNIFIL.
In addition, the Council reaffirmed that UNIFIL does not require prior authorization or permission to undertake its mandated tasks and that UNIFIL is authorized to conduct its operation independently.
It also urged all parties to make tangible progress towards a permanent ceasefire and a long-term solution as envisioned in resolution 1701 (2006) and Israel to expedite the withdrawal of its army from northern Ghajar and the adjacent area north of the Blue Line without further delay in coordination with UNIFIL.
By other terms, the Council commended UNIFIL’s operational changes to address misinformation and disinformation in line with resolution 2650 (2022).
After the adoption, Council members highlighted UNIFIL’s critical role in maintaining peace and stability across the Blue Line and preventing any further escalation, with many stressing the importance of the Interim Force’s unimpeded access, freedom of movement and the security of the peacekeepers.
On that note, the representative of the United Kingdom welcomed the language clarifying UNIFIL’s long-standing mandate to exercise freedom of movement that allows it to respond quickly to Blue Line violations. However, it is unacceptable that UNIFIL is unable to access some locations along the Blue Line border, particularly given Hizbullah’s self-acknowledged stockpiling of weapons, he stressed.
Adding to that, the United Arab Emirates’ representative warned that tensions on the Blue Line are at a level unseen since the 2006 war, with Hizbullah erecting observation towers, conducting military drills with live fire and preventing UNIFIL’s freedom of movement while brazenly attacking peacekeeping forces. “These extremely inflammatory actions threaten a dangerous escalation in our region”, she emphasized, calling on Lebanon to meet its responsibilities regarding UNIFIL’s freedom of movement.
For his part, Ghana’s delegate urged Israel and Lebanon to work towards a permanent ceasefire and to fully respect the Blue Line. Noting the urgency in consolidating the authority of the Lebanese armed forces and State security institutions over Lebanese territory, he underlined the need for an early, nationally oriented resolution of Lebanon’s political situation.
The representative of China, whose delegation abstained in the vote, meanwhile underscored that respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the State concerned is a basic prerequisite for peacekeeping operations. Accordingly, the Council should properly address the views and appeals of Lebanon, he asserted.
Echoing his stance, the Russian Federation’s representative said that his delegation abstained due to a “series of contentious changes introduced to the text in the final stages of the negotiating process”. His delegation nevertheless supports UNIFIL as a stabilizing factor along the Blue Line, he emphasized.
Rounding out the discussion, Lebanon’s delegate urged States to listen to her country’s concerns and cited the historic abstention of two Council members on the extension of UNIFIL’s mandate as “a very significant indicator”. She also voiced regret that the text failed to take into consideration her country’s sovereignty. Stressing the demand of having peacekeeping troops on the ground in Lebanon, she said that Beirut has never denounced the principle of UNIFIL’s freedom of movement.
Opposing language that “looks like resolutions under Chapter VII [of the Charter of the United Nations]”, she said the resolution to extend UNIFIL’s mandate is under Chapter VI of the Charter of the United Nations – “a resolution that was prompted by a request from Lebanon, […] not imposed on Lebanon”. She emphasized that UNIFIL’s presence in South Lebanon is mainly prompted by an outstanding conflict between Lebanon and Israel.
THE SITUATION IN THE MIDDLE EAST
Action on Draft Resolution
The Council adopted resolution 2695 (2023) by a vote of 13 in favour to none against, with 2 abstentions (China, Russian Federation).
Statements
JAMES KARIUKI (United Kingdom), noting that his delegation voted in favour of the draft, highlighted the critical role of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) in maintaining peace and stability across the Blue Line and preventing any further escalation that would be catastrophic for the region. UNIFIL is authorized to take all necessary action to ensure the freedom of movement of its personnel and to fulfil its duties. In this context, he welcomed the language clarifying UNIFIL’s long-standing mandate to exercise freedom of movement that allows it to respond quickly to Blue Line violations. However, it is unacceptable that UNIFIL is unable to access some locations along the Blue Line border, particularly given Hizbullah’s self-acknowledged stockpiling of weapons. UNIFIL’s support to Lebanese armed forces had a positive impact on the situation across the Blue Line, he pointed out, expressing disappointment that the logistical support was removed from this year’s mandate.
SÉRGIO FRANÇA DANESE (Brazil), underlining the need to keep UNIFIL’s mandate “as robust as it is”, said that the text ensures that the Interim Force will be able to freely operate with the support of the Council. Further, it addresses some of Lebanon’s concerns, which sends a powerful message to that friendly country and its political leadership. He added that Brazil supports the Interim Force’s crucial activities to maintain peace and stability in the region, particularly under current circumstances.
GENG SHUANG (China) said that because the draft resolution put to the vote failed to fully address the concerns of the State concerned and some Security Council members, it was not unanimously adopted. Respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the State concerned is a basic prerequisite for peacekeeping operations. The security situation near the Blue Line remains complex and fragile, he said, stressing the need to strengthen communication and avoid any action that may escalate the situation on the ground. The Council should take seriously and properly address the views and appeals of Lebanon. As a permanent member of this Council and a major troop contributing country to UNIFIL, China stands ready to work with the international community to make positive contributions to maintaining peace and stability in Lebanon, he said.
SHINO MITSUKO (Japan) commended France for its efforts to strike a sensitive balance in the text, taking into consideration feedback from the ground. Since 2006, UNIFIL has conducted its operations in accordance with a mandate it was given by resolution 1701 (2006). As UNIFIL finds itself in an ever-more challenging environment, it is imperative for the Council to support its irreplaceable function in Lebanon and the region, she said, stressing the need to ensure its freedom of movement.
HAFIZ ISSAHAKU (Ghana), noting that his country is a long-standing troop contributor, said that UNIFIL plays an important role in preserving international peace and security and reaffirmed the Interim Force’s independence in the execution of its mandate. He urged the Governments of Israel and Lebanon to work towards a permanent ceasefire and to fully respect the Blue Line. He further emphasized the urgency in consolidating the authority of the Lebanese armed forces and State security institutions over Lebanese territory. In this regard, he underlined the need for an early, nationally oriented resolution of Lebanon’s political situation.
FERIT HOXHA (Albania) said that the situation in Lebanon remains difficult and the presence of UNIFIL is of paramount importance for its peace and stability and, more broadly, the entire region. He highlighted the importance of the Interim Force’s unimpeded access, freedom of movement and the security of the peacekeepers, adding that it must be empowered to fully carry out its mandate.
VASSILY A. NEBENZIA (Russian Federation) said that his delegation abstained due to a “series of contentious changes introduced to the text in the final stages of the negotiating process”. He stressed that his country’s consistent starting point has been to take Lebanon’s opinion into account, whose leadership sent unequivocal signals regarding strengthening coordination between the Interim Force and its armed forces. Underscoring that his delegation’s position during the vote was solely a result of its disagreement regarding the resolution’s wording, he supported UNIFIL as a stabilizing factor along the Blue Line. He also expressed hope that today’s resolution “will not complicate the situation in Lebanon”, calling on UNIFIL’s leadership to continue actively coordinating with that country’s Government.
LANA ZAKI NUSSEIBEH (United Arab Emirates) warned that tensions on the Blue Line are at a level unseen since the 2006 war. Over the past year, on a daily basis, Hizbullah has been making a mockery of resolutions 1701 (2006) and 1559 (2004). It has erected observation towers, conducted military drills with live fire and prevented UNIFIL’s freedom of movement while brazenly attacking peacekeeping forces. It has also actively perpetuated Lebanon’s myriad crises, obstructed the investigation into the devastating Beirut port explosion and paralysed key State institutions. “These extremely inflammatory actions threaten a dangerous escalation in our region”, she emphasized, stressing the need to ensure that UNIFIL’s mandate addresses development on the ground. Noting that the Interim Force continues to face challenges to its freedom of movement and the lack of access to locations of interest, she welcomed the clear language added to the text on its independence. The text calls on Lebanon to facilitate UNIFIL’s full access to sites requested by the Interim Force, including “all locations of interests”, she said, underscoring that Lebanon must meet its responsibilities with regard to UNIFIL’s freedom of movement, which it has been failing to do.
LINDA THOMAS-GREENFIELD (United States), Council President for August, spoke in her national capacity to underline the importance of fully implementing the text’s provisions regarding UNIFIL’s full freedom of movement, along with its ability to conduct both announced and unannounced patrols. UNIFIL’s inability to access several illegal sites which facilitate Hizbullah’s operations in southern Lebanon along the Blue Line hinders the Interim Force’s ability to reduce the likelihood of conflict. She therefore called on the Lebanese Government to ensure the full implementation of UNIFIL’s mandate, consistent with the terms of the status-of-forces agreement. Adding that the United States sanctioned Green Without Borders and its leaders earlier in August due to its activities in support of Hizbullah, she said her country will continue to support Lebanese civil-society organizations protecting Lebanon’s environment while “relentlessly pursuing Hizbullah and its support networks”.
JEANNE MRAD (Lebanon), calling on States to listen to her country’s concerns and try to reflect them into the resolution adopted today, cited the historic abstention of two Council members on the extension of UNIFIL’s mandate as “a very significant indicator”. Reiterating her country’s commitment to resolution 1701 (2006), she stressed the demand of having peacekeeping troops on the ground in Lebanon. Regrettably, the text did not reflect all of Lebanon’s concerns, failing to take into consideration the particular characteristic of the situation. “This particularity is called sovereignty,” she said, underscoring that Lebanon has never rejected or denounced the principle of UNIFIL’s freedom of movement. However, this freedom of movement should be upheld while maintaining the safety and security of the troops.
With regard to the occupation of north of Al-Ghajar, she voiced her opposition to “cherry-picking” as it fails to consider the particularities of countries concerned. Spotlighting the gap between the text and the reality on the ground, she emphasized that the resolution to extend UNIFIL’s mandate is under Chapter VI of the Charter of the United Nations – “a resolution that was prompted by a request from Lebanon, […] not imposed on Lebanon”. “Why resort to a language that pretty much looks like resolutions under Chapter VII?” she asked, stressing that tension should not be induced where there are not needed. UNIFIL’s presence in South Lebanon is mainly prompted by an outstanding conflict between Lebanon and Israel, she emphasized, rejecting “the false impression” that the problem exists only between one Lebanese group and UNIFIL. To the contrary, the relationship between UNIFIL and the locals in the South is very good. “Let the text be an enabling factor for further stability and security […] rather than a [source] of tensions,” she stressed.
