August 31, 2024
By Nasser Kandil
Diplomatic manoeuvring at the UN Security Council has long served as a barometer for gauging U.S. anxiety in imposing new equations on the global arenas of conflict it faces. It also offers insight into how the U.S. perceives the balance of power with its adversaries in these arenas. The annual renewal of UNIFIL’s mandate in southern Lebanon has consistently exemplified these two diplomatic dimensions.
Every time the UNIFIL mandate approached its expiration, the U.S. would begin advocating for amendments to the mandate, sometimes to the extent of presenting them as conditions for renewal, even hinting at the possibility of non-renewal. Typically, the entire collective West would rally behind the U.S., with France taking the lead in proposing these amendments, given its special relationship with Lebanon.
The proposed amendments have always aimed at enhancing UNIFIL’s powers, pushing for greater independence from the Lebanese Army, and edging closer to the authority granted under Chapter VII. The intensity of the pressure to enforce these amendments often reflected the U.S. assessment of the balance of power between the occupying entity and the resistance forces, amplified by American dominance in the Security Council.
This year, however, was different. Although there were whispers about the need for amendments, these remained just that – whispers, more for formality than actual testing of waters. France, which traditionally leads the charge on this front, signalled a shift. Unlike in previous years, France was inclined to renew the mandate without any amendments, aligning with Lebanon’s request.
The desire to see a doubled UNIFIL force with open-ended powers to move, search, raid locations, and hunt for weapons in valleys and mountain ranges has always been expressed loudly as the tangible interpretation of Resolution 1701, often with only marginal mention of Israeli violations of Lebanese sovereignty. But this time, those demands were merely whispers.
UNIFIL’s mandate was renewed swiftly, without debate, sticking to the original draft without any amendments. This happened just three days after the resistance in Lebanon retaliated against the occupying entity’s violation by attacking the southern suburbs and assassinating a resistance leader. It seems that what transpired at the Security Council was the first fruit of the resistance’s response, and the first indication that the retaliation was effective.
