Mandate of UNIFIL extended for six months until 19 January 1987.

Mandate of UNIFIL extended for six months until 19 January 1987

On 18 July, the Security Council extendedthe mandate of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) for a period of six months--until 19 January 1987.

In unanimously adopting resolution586(1986), the Council also reiterated its strong support for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized boundaries and called on all parties concerned to co-operate fully with the Force for full implementation of its mandate.

The Secretary-General was alsoasked to continue consultations with the Government of Lebanon and other parties directly concerned and to report back to the Council.

Since UNIFIL was established inMarch 1978, its mandate has been extended 20 times for periods ranging from one to six months. It was last extended on 18 April 1986 for a period of three months, until 19 July 1986.

On 7 July, Lebanon, in a letter tothe Secretary-General (S/18202), asked for a six-month extension of the UNIFIL mandate, stating that it was convinced, despite the current situation in southern Lebanon, that the Force continued to be "an essential factor for stability and the best available option for ensuring peace and security in the region" precisely at a time when further efforts were needed to enable UNIFIL to discharge completely its mandate.

Report: The Secretary-General on10 July reported (S/18164/Add 1 and Corr.1), that his views remained as expressed in his 17 June report (S/18164), as follows:

* UNIFIL continued to be a "criticalforce for stability in southern Lebanon";

* The United Nations should pursuea process of negotiation with Lebanon and Israel to establish agreement for practical measures so the Force could fulfil its mandate;

* If UNIFIL were to be withdrawn,a vacuum would be created in southern Lebanon and "the ensuing competition to fill that vacuum would inevitably lead to uncontrolled violence, with great detriment to the welfare of the civilian inhabitants"; and

* Israel's continuing militarypresence in southern Lebanon was "self-defeating" and the right way to restore international peace and security in southern Lebanon was for the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) to withdraw from Lebanon and for UNIFIL to be allowed to carry out its mandate (see UN Chronicle 1986, No. 4).

The international community mustmaintain the effort to put into effect the solution decided upon by the Council in its resolution 425 (1978), the Secretary-General, said, adding that UNIFIL was "vital to that solution". He recommended a six-month extension of the mandate, stating he had taken account not only of the "clearly expressed" wish of the Lebanese Government, but also of the administrative difficulties that resulted from a mandate period of less than six months.

During the night of 9-10 July, hewent on, there had been a serious incident outside the UNIFIL area of deployment, but in the vicinity of the UNIFIL headquarters at Naqoura. An exchange of fire had taken place near the border crossing at Rosh Haniqra, involving an Israeli patrol boat, IDF personnel stationed on shore and a group of armed infiltrators reported to have come ashore in a rubber dinghy.

It had been reported that all four infiltratorshad been killed and that two members of IDF had been killed and nine others wounded, he said. Tension persisted in the "security zone" maintained by Israel in southern Lebanon as Lebanese resistance groups continued their attacks against personnel and positions of the IDF and the "South Lebanon Army" (SLA).

The Secretary-General expressedextreme concern that, as at the beginning of July 1986, there was an accumulated shortfall in UNIFIL Special Account of some $251 million. That placed an increasingly unfair and heavy burden on the troop-contributing countries, and, "if not remedied in time, it could jeopardize the functioning of this important operation, and, indeed, its very existence". All Member States, he said, should pay their assessments without delay; the more developed countries should consider making available voluntary contributions to the UNIFIL Suspense Account.

Debate

Rachid Fakhoury (Lebanon) said theCouncil's unanimous decision was a positive indication of its wish to implement fully, speedily and completely resolution 425 and all subsequent resolutions on the subject. The continued grave and volatile situation in southern Lebanon resulted from Israel's refusal to implement Council resolutions calling for its complete and unconditional withdrawal from Lebanon, for deployment of international forces within internationally recognized boundaries, and for the exercise of sovereignty and authority by the Lebanese Government over all its territories, so that southern Lebanon might become a region of security, peace and stability.

Lebanon's insistence on implementationof those resolutions proceeded from the principle of its right to liberate its territory, to protect its boundaries and to maintain its sovereignty and territorial integrity. On the night of 14-15 July, Israeli military jets had bombed three villages only a few miles from Beirut; on 10 July, it had bombed the Ein El Helwa Camp near Sidon. Israel's naval blockade of the ports of Sidon and Tyre remained in force. Israel must realize that security, peace and stability in the south and in the region were conditional upon renunciation of the policy of occupation and aggression. It must abandon its intransigent refusal to implement Council resolutions.

Benjamin Netanyahu (Israel) said hiscountry had no interest in Lebanon's territory or in its internal affairs, as such. The chief problem that Israel had faced from that border was the threat of terrorist attacks against towns and villages in northern Israel. Israel's policy was geared to prevent that threat, which manifested itself in various forms, such as armed incursions, terrorist attacks on villages, rocketings and shellings.

The basic problem on the other sideof the border was the absence of a body or an authority or a power able to police that area, and to discharge the most fundamental responsibility of sovereignty--to control one's own territory and to control armed incursions from one's territory against a nieghbouring State. In that regard, UNIFIL was a positive force because it introduced a measure of stability into a very unstable area. But that was not UNIFIL's mandate, nor culd it be its principal activity. It was not within UNIFIL's capacity to carry out the policing action that normally would be expected of the Lebanese Government. There was no Lebanese sovereignty and central authority in Beirut, which was under direct occupation of the Syrian army. "We know who stands behind them."

Israel would welcome the opportunityto discuss with the Lebanese Government, and with any element in Lebanon, the possibility of making security arrangements in the south that would ensure the safety and peace needed by Israelis in the north. But in the absence of a negotiating partner and of an effective authority in the south, Israel continued to take action of the kind that it had taken the other day.

Pierre Brochand (France) said that,without concealing its concern about the conditions in which UNIFIL was being used, France reaffirmed its commitment to the Force. Many obstacles still lay in the way of action by the Force in accordance with its mandate. France deplored "the continuing difficulties encountered in the negotiations being held by the Secretariat". The usefulness of UNIFIL's activities had been broadly recognized. Its financing, while still a matter of concern, was now assured on a broader basis.

France's desire "to rebalanceresponsibilities and risks" within UNIFIL had met with understanding. The Secretary-General should pursue his difficult negotiations in the field with the various parties involved. The extension of UNIFIL's mandate could not henceforth be a mere matter of routine. France, which was devoted to Lebanon's unity, sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence, had made a particularly significant contribution to the Force and it was ready, as long as UNIFIL, was considered necessary, to continue that support.

Peter Maxey (United Kingdom) saidthat UNIFIL was an important factor for stability in the area. Its provision of humanitarian assistance to the local population in its area of operation was of particular value.

An essential component of any solutionto the tense and unhappy situation in southern Lebanon was the completion of the withdrawal of Israeli forces to the international border. Israel's assurance that it did not intend to maintain a military presence in Lebanon indefinitely was welcome. Israel should take full account of the Council's unanimous wish to secure a rapid end to the present unsatisfactory situation. Harassment of UNIFIL by armed elements, from whatever side or quarter, was totally unacceptable. Any Member State in a position to exert influence should do all it could to put an end to such actions. All parties involved were obliged to co-operate fully with the Force in the exercise of its mandate.

Vasiliy S. Safronchuk (USSR) saidthe Council's consideration of the extension of UNIFIL's mandate served as "a stark reminder of Israel's ongoing aggression in southern Lebanon", and thus indicated the continuing relevance of the tasks entrusted to UNIFIL. Israel had stubbornly refused to withdraw its troops unconditionally from Lebanon. Because of Israel's actions, UNIFIL had not been able to carry out its functions, the main one being to confirm the withdrawal of "the aggressor's troops" to the international boundary.

It would not be a bad thing, he wenton, if the United States gave some thought to the statement in the Secretary-General's report that the presence of its "strategically", Israel, in southern Lebanon not only led to a further escalation of violence but worked to the detriment of Israel itself. UNIFIL's presence should not be construed as "a way of freezing the situation to serve the interests of the Israeli aggressor". An international conference on the Middle East should be held to achieve a comprehensive peaceful settlement of the conflict in the region.

Patricia M. Byrne (United States) saidthat, contrary to allegations made by a Council member, her country had steadfastly worked to support Lebanon's sovereignty independence and territorial integrity. The best means to bring permanent stability to southern Lebanon would be agreement on long-term security arrangements relating to the Israel-Lebanon border. In the interim, there appeared to be no real alternative to UNIFIL, which had contributed to efforts to bring stability to southern Lebanon despite the limitations placed upon it.