UN on brink of brokering ceasefire agreement
Oliver Burkeman in New York :: Thursday August 3, 2006 :: The Guardian
The United Nations appeared on the verge of breaking the deadlock over Lebanon last night, paving the way for a security council resolution in which major powers including the US and UK would demand an immediate end to fighting.As thousands of Israeli troops moved into southern Lebanon and Hizbullah fired record numbers of rockets at northern Israel, diplomats insisted that disagreements on the council were now all but resolved, and that a resolution could be voted on by early next week. The delay will give Israel more time to pursue its military offensive against Hizbullah.
The US and UK have been opposing calls for an immediate ceasefire, demanding that a long-term solution be devised first, while France – on which any multinational force might well rely for troops and leadership – has insisted that a ceasefire must precede any such negotiations. But there is now “95% convergence” between Washington, London and Paris, one council diplomat said.
No other countries are involved at this stage of the negotiation, and any resulting draft will have to be agreed by a majority of the 15-member security council.
The draft resolution calls for an “immediate cessation of hostilities”, rather than a ceasefire. That is the language preferred by the US – which sees “ceasefire” as implying a permanent arrangement.
The resolution could also call for a beefed-up version of the existing UN peacekeeping force, which could be followed by a second resolution authorising a more powerful international force, a buffer zone between opposing forces and a plan to disarm Hizbullah.
Israel made clear last night that it expected the force to comprise far more troops with far greater combat ability than the current UN peacekeeping contingent. “I think it has to have about 15,000 soldiers,” said the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, in an interview with the Times. “It has to be made up of armies not of retirees, of real soldiers, not of pensioners who have come to spend leisurely months in south Lebanon. We will not pull out and we will not stop shooting until there is an international force that will effectively control the area.”
With momentum towards a diplomatic deal gathering pace, the adversaries on the ground sought the upper hand before any truce is declared. Hizbullah fired more than 200 rockets at northern Israel, far more than on any previous day in the three-week conflict, some landing as far south as the West Bank town of Jenin. The bombardment came despite Israeli claims that its offensive in southern Lebanon has hobbled Hizbullah.
Israel poured more troops and tanks into Lebanon and bombed targets across the south and around the Hizbullah stronghold of Baalbek near the Syrian border.
A central part of the resolution would address how to prevent further arms reaching Hizbullah over the Syrian border during a truce. “There has to be an understanding between parties that, as hostilities end, no one takes advantage of that,” the diplomat said.
The US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, often a vocal critic of the council, said discussions were still ongoing about “the nature of a cessation of hostilities and how to make it permanent”. But he declared himself “very impressed by the good faith” on all sides.
“What we are talking about now is something that will set up the framework for the larger political foundation for a sustainable ceasefire,” he added.
Crucially, however, it remained unclear what effect a UN resolution might have on the ground. Diplomats said they doubted the US would have signed on to the plan without an indication that Israel intended to cooperate.
Russia and China, the other council members with veto power, had also yet to be consulted, and it remained unclear what degree of communication there would be between the UN and Hizbullah in an attempt to enforce a cessation.
Even if it did take effect, the cessation would not require Israel to withdraw its troops from Lebanon. “I don’t think it’s realistic to imagine there’s going to be a widespread Israeli withdrawal,” one western diplomat said. “They would be where they are.”
In an apparent effort to push the council faster towards demanding a truce, France announced that it would not attend a meeting that had been scheduled for today, to discuss possible troop contributions to an international force. The UN cancelled the meeting.
“It is important to have this political settlement before having the force deployed. So it is premature to have such a meeting. It’s a question of timing,” said France’s UN ambassador, Jean-Marc de la Sabliere.
The meeting had been intended to show Israel the UN was thinking on a longer timescale than a ceasefire, towards a force that would help enforce UN security council resolution 1559, which calls on the Lebanese government to enforce its sovereignty in the south of the country.
Recent Comments