The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), established in 1978 to oversee the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Southern Lebanon and restore peace, has found itself increasingly ineffective in its mission. Despite its original mandate, UNIFIL has struggled to contain Hezbollah’s growing influence and military presence in the region. This failure is rooted in a complex web of factors, including Hezbollah’s dominance, the Lebanese Armed Forces’ (LAF) subservience to Hezbollah, and UNIFIL’s own limitations.
UNIFIL’s mandate to disarm non-state militias and maintain peace in Southern Lebanon has been largely unfulfilled. Hezbollah, with its arsenal of thousands of missiles stationed within civilian areas, continues to operate freely, disregarding UNSC Resolution 1559, which calls for Lebanon’s sovereignty and the disbandment of all militias.
One major challenge for UNIFIL has been its limited authority over Hezbollah. The mission’s mandate restricts its ability to confront the militant group directly, leading to criticism of its failure to prevent Hezbollah’s rearming and maintaining its military presence in Southern Lebanon. This inability to disarm non-state actors undermines UNIFIL’s role in restoring the Lebanese state’s authority over the region.
Furthermore, UNIFIL has been criticized for its perceived bias, facing accusations from both Israel and Lebanon. Israel accuses the force of turning a blind eye to Hezbollah’s activities, while some Lebanese view it as overly aligned with Israeli interests. This perception of bias has further complicated UNIFIL’s efforts to operate effectively in a volatile environment.
The LAF, Lebanon’s national military, despite its sovereign status, has become compromised by Hezbollah’s influence. The LAF has essentially become subservient to Hezbollah’s directives, facilitating the group’s free movement and military fortifications across Southern Lebanon. This has resulted in Hezbollah establishing “no-go” zones, further inhibiting UNIFIL’s access to Hezbollah’s weapons caches. The LAF often coordinates patrols with Hezbollah to ensure that no critical sites are exposed.
Hezbollah’s audacity is evident in its direct intimidation of UNIFIL personnel, effectively obstructing the LAF’s collaboration with UNIFIL to monitor activities that threaten Israel. Even proposals to enhance UNIFIL’s oversight of the Blue Line through new surveillance cameras have been vetoed by Hezbollah.
The future of UNIFIL in Lebanon is uncertain. The mission has become a symbolic presence, rather than an effective force, shackled by Hezbollah’s growing power. Ironically, risks are always mounting for UNIFIL personnel, who are increasingly caught in the crossfire between Hezbollah and Israel. Incidents such as Hezbollah’s missile strikes from UNIFIL positions underline how peacekeepers are being used as pawns in a larger conflict.
This raises the critical question of whether the international community, including major UNIFIL contributors like the United States, should continue to fund a mission that has been unable to protect either Lebanon or Israel. With Hezbollah’s arsenal ever-growing and the Lebanese government paralysed, the UNSC must consider whether continuing the current mandate is merely a bureaucratic exercise in futility.
As tensions escalate, fueled in part by the fractured UNSC, the future of peacekeeping in Lebanon looks increasingly precarious. The situation in Lebanon is a classic example of larger geopolitical failure, highlighting the limitations of UNIFIL’s mandate and the challenges of peacekeeping in a region dominated by powerful non-state actors.
