Specialized in Middle Eastern affaires before retiring from the Department of National Defense in Canada.
On 2 Sept 2004, the UN Security Council (UNSC) adopted resolution 1559 with typically high-minded rhetoric designed to make it appear that the UNSC was actually doing something to help resolve the smouldering issue of restoring full sovereignty to the State of Lebanon.
The language of the resolution positions the views of the SC by the usual reiteration of its “grave concern” and by recalling all previous statements and resolutions; it concludes with its request to the Secretary-General to report on the implementation and to remain “actively seized of the matter”.
Here is part of the theoretical basis for the SC 1559 solution as seen by the diplomats.
1. Reaffirms its call for the strict respect of the sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity, and political independence of Lebanon under the sole and exclusive authority of the Government of Lebanon throughout Lebanon;
2. Calls upon all remaining foreign forces to withdraw from Lebanon;
3. Calls for the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias;
4. Supports the extension of the control of the Government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory;
What an empty and meaningless pile of bilge.
Essentially from then until now, the UN did nothing to support these four points and worse, totally failed to respond to the clear build up of arms and control of Southern Lebanon by Hezbollah. In fact, the non-state militia of Hezbollah was allowed to flourish from the moment of the pull-out by Israel in 2000.
In the 1559 referenced report of the Sec-Gen, the following conclusion was reached with respect to the disposition of the Shaaba Farms area:
“When UN surveyors marked the Blue Line between Lebanon and Israel in the summer of 2000 after Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon, they determined that the Shaaba Farms villages were on the Israeli side, that is, on land that will be the subject of peace negotiations between Israel and Syria (my underline -cn) at some time in the future.”
“On 15 May 2000, the United Nations received a map, dated 1966, from the Government of Lebanon which reflected the Government's position that these farmlands were located in Lebanon. However, the United Nations is in possession of 10 other maps issued after 1966 by various Lebanese government institutions, including the Ministry of Defence and the army, all of which place the farmlands inside the Syrian Arab Republic. The United Nations has also examined six maps issued by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic, including three maps since 1966, which place the farmlands inside the Syrian Arab Republic.”
However in typical Middle-East fashion and since Israel's withdrawal, “Hezbollah has kept the dispute over Shaaba Farms boiling with assertions that they have evidence supporting Lebanese claims to the land. This gives them a pretext to attack Israel for holding land Hezbollah still considers to be part of Lebanon; that is, they claim Israel has not yet withdrawn from all of Lebanon.”
Roll forward almost two years to the present UNSC resolution, 1701 and surprise, surprise, the Shaaba Farms is back on the agenda: the draft resolution says the SC will “take due note” of “the proposals made in the seven-point plan regarding the Shebaa farms area”.
This is the relevant para in the Siniora 7 point plan:
“c- A commitment from the Security Council to place the Shebaa Farms area and the Kfarshouba Hills under UN jurisdiction until border delineation and Lebanese sovereignty over them are fully settled.”
Just wondering - how do you think the SC will “take due note” of this request from Siniora. Far as I can see the issue is as “fully settled” as it could possibly be. On the other hand this conclusion is based on my North-American logic and will no doubt be seen as quite inadequate to deal with Middle-East logic.
This in spite of the following clear statement by the UN Sec-Gen, January 20, 2005 in his UN report on Lebanon:
"The continually asserted position of the Government of Lebanon that the Blue Line is not valid in the Shab'a farms area is not compatible with Security Council resolutions. The Council has recognized the Blue Line as valid for purposes of confirming Israel’s withdrawal pursuant to resolution 425 (1978). The UN Security Council has repeatedly requested that all parties respect the Blue Line in its entirety."[5].(Middle East Intelligence Bulletin - MEIB). The official position of the UN has always been that Resolution 425 required Israeli forces to withdraw to the pre-1978 line of separation, that is, to the 1949 Armistice Demarcation Line (ADL ).
Until recently, successive Lebanese governments explicitly endorsed this position - the 1949 ADL was considered sacrosanct. In fact, the 1989 Ta'if Accord which established the Second Lebanese Republic explicitly calls for adherence "to the truce agreement signed on March 23, 1949" and implementation of Resolution 425.
So, why has this issue reopened?
To say that the dispute was simply a pretext used by Hezbollah and Syria to justify its continued attacks on Israel and the Israeli Defence Force (IDF), is to state the obvious. In its assessment of the claims and counter claims to the area, the UN relied on all known maps dating from as early as the French mandate period beginning in 1921.
Read it in full.
The language of the resolution positions the views of the SC by the usual reiteration of its “grave concern” and by recalling all previous statements and resolutions; it concludes with its request to the Secretary-General to report on the implementation and to remain “actively seized of the matter”.
Here is part of the theoretical basis for the SC 1559 solution as seen by the diplomats.
1. Reaffirms its call for the strict respect of the sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity, and political independence of Lebanon under the sole and exclusive authority of the Government of Lebanon throughout Lebanon;
2. Calls upon all remaining foreign forces to withdraw from Lebanon;
3. Calls for the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias;
4. Supports the extension of the control of the Government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory;
What an empty and meaningless pile of bilge.
Essentially from then until now, the UN did nothing to support these four points and worse, totally failed to respond to the clear build up of arms and control of Southern Lebanon by Hezbollah. In fact, the non-state militia of Hezbollah was allowed to flourish from the moment of the pull-out by Israel in 2000.
In the 1559 referenced report of the Sec-Gen, the following conclusion was reached with respect to the disposition of the Shaaba Farms area:
“When UN surveyors marked the Blue Line between Lebanon and Israel in the summer of 2000 after Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon, they determined that the Shaaba Farms villages were on the Israeli side, that is, on land that will be the subject of peace negotiations between Israel and Syria (my underline -cn) at some time in the future.”
“On 15 May 2000, the United Nations received a map, dated 1966, from the Government of Lebanon which reflected the Government's position that these farmlands were located in Lebanon. However, the United Nations is in possession of 10 other maps issued after 1966 by various Lebanese government institutions, including the Ministry of Defence and the army, all of which place the farmlands inside the Syrian Arab Republic. The United Nations has also examined six maps issued by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic, including three maps since 1966, which place the farmlands inside the Syrian Arab Republic.”
However in typical Middle-East fashion and since Israel's withdrawal, “Hezbollah has kept the dispute over Shaaba Farms boiling with assertions that they have evidence supporting Lebanese claims to the land. This gives them a pretext to attack Israel for holding land Hezbollah still considers to be part of Lebanon; that is, they claim Israel has not yet withdrawn from all of Lebanon.”
Roll forward almost two years to the present UNSC resolution, 1701 and surprise, surprise, the Shaaba Farms is back on the agenda: the draft resolution says the SC will “take due note” of “the proposals made in the seven-point plan regarding the Shebaa farms area”.
This is the relevant para in the Siniora 7 point plan:
“c- A commitment from the Security Council to place the Shebaa Farms area and the Kfarshouba Hills under UN jurisdiction until border delineation and Lebanese sovereignty over them are fully settled.”
Just wondering - how do you think the SC will “take due note” of this request from Siniora. Far as I can see the issue is as “fully settled” as it could possibly be. On the other hand this conclusion is based on my North-American logic and will no doubt be seen as quite inadequate to deal with Middle-East logic.
This in spite of the following clear statement by the UN Sec-Gen, January 20, 2005 in his UN report on Lebanon:
"The continually asserted position of the Government of Lebanon that the Blue Line is not valid in the Shab'a farms area is not compatible with Security Council resolutions. The Council has recognized the Blue Line as valid for purposes of confirming Israel’s withdrawal pursuant to resolution 425 (1978). The UN Security Council has repeatedly requested that all parties respect the Blue Line in its entirety."[5].(Middle East Intelligence Bulletin - MEIB). The official position of the UN has always been that Resolution 425 required Israeli forces to withdraw to the pre-1978 line of separation, that is, to the 1949 Armistice Demarcation Line (ADL ).
Until recently, successive Lebanese governments explicitly endorsed this position - the 1949 ADL was considered sacrosanct. In fact, the 1989 Ta'if Accord which established the Second Lebanese Republic explicitly calls for adherence "to the truce agreement signed on March 23, 1949" and implementation of Resolution 425.
So, why has this issue reopened?
To say that the dispute was simply a pretext used by Hezbollah and Syria to justify its continued attacks on Israel and the Israeli Defence Force (IDF), is to state the obvious. In its assessment of the claims and counter claims to the area, the UN relied on all known maps dating from as early as the French mandate period beginning in 1921.
Read it in full.
No comments:
Post a Comment