Monday, September 04, 2006

The danger of UNIFIL2

Until now UN peace keeping missions have been somewhere between a disaster and a joke. The UN peace keeping mission in Rwanda was withdrawn on the orders of its then boss Kofi Annan just before the massacres started, or when it might have been of some use. The UNIFIL peace keeping mission in Lebanon was not just neutral in relation to the two sides, Israel and Hizbollah, on several occasions it actively sided with Hizbollah. For example, when three IDF soldiers were captured and killed by Hizbollah in 2000, Hizbollah tricked the IDF soldiers by using UN vehicles that they had "rented" from UN forces. Not only was this known to the UN, they had a videotape of the actual attack, but withheld it from Israel for several years.
The question is will the new UNIFIL2 peace keeping force be any better. Yes, it will be much larger (from 2,000 to supposedly 15,000), yes it will have a more "robust" mandate to engage forces involved in ceasefire violations. But, there are several potential dangers involved, for Israel and the West: 1. If a small and moribund UN force has sided with Israel's enemy, a larger more robust force could be more dangerous for Israel. There is no doubt that Hizbollah will continue to dig underground tunnels near UN bases from where they can launch rocket attacks in order to attract IDF responses to the vicinity of the UN bases. Also, Hizbollah will no doubt infiltrate the UN forces and find some who are sympathetic to them either ideologically or for money. 2. The addition of Muslim forces as part of the UNIFIL2 (either Turkey and/or Indonesia) could open up a can of worms. Suppose there is a Hizbollah attack on IDF forces, a breakage of the ceasefire, and the IDF retaliates. And suppose this retaliation hits a nearby UN post in which there are Indonesian troops and 10 of them are killed. What then? Will the UN lodge a complaint, will Indonesia, that doesn't recognize Israel, ask for UN action against Israel, will Indonesia declare war on Israel? Anything is possible. 3. The UN does not have its own army. In order to mount these peace keeping missions, the UN Secty. Gen. has to in effect beg for forces from member states that support the mission and that are prepared to risk their own troops in the action. That's how US forces became involved in Somalia that turned out to be a disaster. The member states also pay for the cost of their own forces. But, the more robust rules of engagement of the UNIFIL2 is the closest the UN has come so far to a real army. We of course hope that if it needs to get militarily forceful it will be against Hizbollah breaking the ceasefire in Lebanon. But, even if it does, a precedent will be set whereby forces under UN command, wearing blue berets, will be acting in pursuance of UN aims. On the one had this could be a good precedent (think of what might have happened in Rwanda) but on the other hand it could be very dangerous, knowing that the UN is basically anti-Israel and is largely controlled by Muslim nations that mean the West harm. The developing situation portends promise or danger.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home