Secretary-General calls for "orderly take-over" from Israeli forces in Lebanon.

Secretary-General calls for "orderly take-over" from Israeli forces in Lebanon

An orderly take-over from Israeli froces--"perhaps in the first instance by UNIFL with elements of the Lebanese Army, with teh ultimate aim of restoring the complete authority of the Lebanese Government and Army"--is viewed by Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar as the best means "to reach a situation in Lebanon south of the Litani after the Israeli withdrawal in which international peace and security can be reassured and normal conditions progressively restored".

In a report to the Security Council containing an account of developments relating to the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon from 10 October 1984 to 11 April 1985 (S/17093), the Secretary-General said he would be prepared to consider convoking a new conference of military representatives of Lebanon and Israel "if the Naqoura talks or the 1949 Israel-Lebanon General Armistice Agreement are not acceptable, for one reason or another, to one or other of the parties". To achieve effective and constructive results, some form of consultative mechanism under United Nations auspices would be "extremely desirable, indeed essential". A conference of the military representatives of Israel and Lebanon to discuss military aspects relating to the withdrawal of Israeli forces and security arrangements in southern Lebanon had been convoked by the Secretary-General on 8 November 1984 at Naqoura, the headquarters of UNIFIL. However, at the end of the 14th meeting on 24 January, the conference had been adjourned sine die.

The Secretary-General said that on 14 January, Israel had announced its intention to withdraw from Lebanon in three phases, and the first phase had commenced in February. Lebanon had not agreed to anyrole for UNIFIL in the Israeli withdrawal process north of the Litani. UNIFIL had therefore remained until now in its former area of operation. The activity against the Israeli forces by the Lebanese resistance had markedly increased in recent months, as had the frequency and severity of Israeli countermeasures against the resistance, many of which had taken place in the UNIFIL area. That had created a difficult situation for UNIFIL.

'New situation': The Secretary-General recalled that in a statement on 27 February, he had said that since early February, "a new situation has developed in southern Lebanon. Apart from the restrictions imposed upon the civilian population by the Israeli occupation, the increasing number of attacks on the Israeli forces by Lebanese resistance groups has led to a series of strong Israeli countermeasures, including cordon-and-search operations. The Commander of UNIFIL has reported nine such IDF operations in the UNIFIL area since 6 February. With these incidents, the position of UNIFIL is becoming increasingly difficult."

The statement had continued: "UNIFIL is now stationed in an area where active resistance against IDF is in progress, and in which the latter is engaged in active countermeasures. UNIFIL, for obvious reasons, has no right to impede Lebanese acts of resistance against the occupying force, nor does it have the mandate or the means to prevent countermeasures. In these circumstances, the men of UNIFIL have done their otmost to mitigate violence, protect the civilian population, and reduce acts of reprisal to the minimum.

"There is no easy solution to the dilemma of UNIFIL", according to the statement. "To withdraw the Force would not be in the interest of the Government and people of Lebanon, while to involve it actively in the current violence would merely create a further complicating factor in an already extremely difficult situation. It is essential, therefore, to pursue objectives which will put an end to the current difficulties in the interest of all concerned."

In the meantime, it seemed to the Secretary-General that the only course for UNIFIL was "to maintain its presence and to continue within its limited means to carry out its existing functions in the area."

Urquhart's visit: The Secretary-General had asked Brian Urquhart, Under-Secretary-General for Special Political Affairs, to visit the area and discuss matters relating to UNIFIL's future, the report said.

Mr. Urquhart had visited Lebanon and Israel from 4 to 10 April, and had also visited the Syrian Arab Republic. On the Secretary-General's instructions, he had stressed the importance of securing a speedy, orderly and complete withdrawal of Israeli forces, of the establishment of international peace and security in southern Lebanon and of a proper context and basis for the future functioning of UNIFIL, the ultimate objective being the return of the effective authority of the Lebanese Government in the area and the restoration of normal life and economic activity.

The report observed that Lebanon had felt strongly that the whole area of southern Lebanon should be under the exclusive authority of the Lebanese Army assisted in its task solely by UNIFIL. It would not assign any role to any military force which was not a legal force, nor would it accept buffer zones or security zones of any kind. Israel had stated that it had two principal objectives: complete withdrawal of its forces from Lebanon and security for Israel's northern border. It believed that those objectives could be achieved either by agreement with Lebanon or, failing such agreement, by unilateral security arrangements made by Israel. Israel's preference was for the first alternative, but since the breakdown of the Naquora talks, the latter approach was being actively considered.

the Secretary-General said his efforst and those of his colleagues had been directed in recent days to trying to bring together the positions of the Lebanese and Israeli Governments. "If we fail to do this, I am deeply concerned at the situation which may arise, a situation in which violence is likely to continue and escalate and in which UNIFIL will find itself once again in a position of embarrassment, ineffectiveness and even of danger." It was not in the interest of any of those concerned to allow that to happen.

It was also essential, the Secretary-General observed, to establish under the Security Council's authority conditions in which UNIFIL could function effectively in co-operation with the Lebanese authorities and Army. "I cannot conceal my dismay at the inappropriate situation in which UNIFIL has found itself on various occasions in the past. I think we owe it to the troop-contributing Governments, and indeed to the United Nations, to do our best to ensure that such a situation does not continue in the future." The most important elements involved were the clear understanding that no armed military or paramilitary personnel of any kind could be allowed to operate in the area, other than the Lebanese Army and UNIFIL, and that all parties and elements publicly declared their support for and co-operation with the Lebanese authorities and UNIFIL.

Extension recommended: The presence of UNIFIL was essential in the present circumstances, the Secretary-General said, and he therefore recommended an extension "taking into account the Lebanese request." (In a letter of 27 March (S/17062), Lebanon had requested an extension of the UNIFIL mandate for a further period of six months on the basis of the privisions of resolutions 425 (1978), 426 (1978), 501 (1982), 508 (1982), 509 (1982), 520 (1982) and other relevant resolutions and decisions of the Security Council, and had stated certain conditions for UNIFIL's future role.) "I wish to stress again, however, that it is also essential to secure at least the minimum conditions for the effective future work" of UNIFIL, the Secretary-General said.

Situation deteriorates: The report stated that the deteriorating situation in southern Lebanon was reflected in the UNIFIL area of deployment. UNIFIL had reported that the economy of the area had suffered severely.

Financial aspects: The Secretary-General stated that as of the beginning of April, there was an accumulated shortfall in the UNIFIL Special Account of some $211.5 million, compared with $199 million at the time of the previous report in October 1984. He strongly appealed to Member States to pay their assessments without delay and appealed to the Governments of the more developed countries to consider making available, as a practical measure, voluntary contributions to the UNIFIL Suspense Account, to be used for the reimbursement of Governments contributing troops, equipment and supplies to UNIFIL.