Security Council extends UNIFIL mandate until 31 January 1988, reiterates support for Lebanon's territorial integrity.

Security Council extends UNIFIL mandate until 31 January 1988, reiterates support for Lebanon's territorial integrity 

THE SECURITY COUNCIL on 31 July extended the mandate of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) for a period of six months--until 31 January 1988. Since UNIFIL was established in March 1978, its mandate has been extended 22 times for periods ranging from one to six months. It was last extended on 15 January 1987. The 5,778-strong Force is commanded by Major-General Gustav Hagglund.

In unanimously adopting resolution 599 (1987), the Council also reiterated its strong support for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized boundaries. All parties concerned were called on to co-operate fully with the Force for full implementation of its mandate.

Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar was also asked to continue consultations with the Government of Lebanon and other parties directly concerned and to report back to the Council.

In recommending extension of the mandate, Mr. Perez de Cuellar said it would help to "avoid a vacuum which could cause the present conflict to intensify and spread'. Because of the continuing Israeli presence and the inability of Lebanon's central Government to exercise effective authority, violence persisted in southern Lebanon, the Secretary-General reported.

Lebanon, in a 16 July letter to the Secretary-General (S/18999), stated it was convinced, despite the situation which existed in southern Lebanon as a result of the continued presence of the "Israeli occupation forces', UNIFIL continued to be an essential factor for stability and the best available option for ensuring peace and security in the region.

Unstable situation

In his report (S/18990) covering the period 12 January to 24 July 1987, Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar stated that the situation in southern Lebanon had remained highly unstable. Israel's refusal to withdraw completely and its insistence on maintaining the "security zone' continued to thwart efforts to start a process to restore international peace and stability in the area.

In the central part of UNIFIL's area and to the north of it, various Lebanese resistance groups had intensified their campaign against the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) and its Lebanese allies, who had often responded with great violence to attacks against their positions, the Secretary-General said. The main sufferers from those hostilities had been civilians. UNIFIL had continued to do all it could to protect civilians, in close co-operation with the local leaders.

In several cases, UNIFIL positions had been occupied by armed elements engaged in attacks against positions of the IDF and the so-called "South Lebanon Army' (SLA). UNIFIL positions continued to be the target of deliberate harassing fire by the IDF and more frequently by the SLA. They were also, on occasion, caught in cross-fire during armed exchanges between the IDF/SLA and resistance groups.

The security measures and the new operating procedures introduced by the Force Commander had contributed significantly to the decline in casualties. But the need for the greatest vigilance remained. UNIFIL soldiers were carrying out their responsibilities in a highly volatile part of the world and there would be no relaxation in the Secretary-General's efforts to enhance their security.

Mr. Perez de Cuellar renewed his appeal to all involved in hostilities in southern Lebanon to treat UNIFIL and its personnel with the respect due to those sent on a mission of peace at the request of the Lebanese Government and with the full backing of the international community, to help them fulfil their taska and to do nothing which could put their lives at risk.

The Secretary-General said that troop-contributing States--Fiji, Finland, France, Ghana, Ireland, Italy, Nepal, Norway and Sweden--faced an unfair situation in which, because of withholding by some Member States of their assessed contributions, those Governments did not receive the reimbursement which the General Assembly had decided they should receive.

The Force's serious financial situation had continued to deteriorate, the Secretary-General said. The accumulated shortfall in the UNIFIL Special Account was estimated to have reached $281 million at the beginning of July 1987. Consequently, reimbursement to the troop-contributing Governments had continued at the reduced rate of $600 per person per month.

Mr. Perez de Cuellar pointed out that UNIFIL had always encountered difficulty in meeting its expenses, particularly as regards the reimbursement of troop costs at the full rate set by the General Assembly. That had been due to a shortfall in the UNIFIL Special Account resulting from the nonpayment of assessed contributions, in whole or in part, by certain Member States. The United States Congress had not approved a request by the Administration for a supplemental appropriation of $21.6 million.

Troop contributors, at a meeting held just before the Council meeting, expressed concern over UNIFIL's serious financial situation.

Debate

Rachid Fakhoury (Lebanon) said the situation in southern Lebanon was explosive and fraught with tension. Israel continued to occupy Lebanese territory, calling it a security zone which it used as an advance base for its forces and the militias under its wing to perpetrate acts of aggression against Lebanon. Israel was hampering implementation of Council resolutions and preventing UNIFIL from fulfilling its mandate. Council resolutions calling for a full, comprehensive and unconditional Israeli withdrawal from all of Lebanon, deployment of UNIFIL to internationally recognized borders and assistance to the Lebanese Government to enable it to extend its sovereignty and authority to all Lebanese territory, should be implemented.

The Secretary-General's statement that violence persisted in southern Lebanon bacause of the continuing Israeli presence and the inability of the central Government of Lebanon to exercise effective authority was erroneous and misleading, because the Lebanese Government remained determined to send its forces to the south as soon as the Council could overcome the real difficulty--the fact that UNIFIL had been rendered unable to fulfil one of its main missions--to assist the State of Lebanon in extending its sovereignty and authority to all Lebanese territory.

Johanan Bein (Israel) said terrorists continued to use southern Lebanon as a base for cross-border attacks against Israel. Israel would continue to make every effort to protect and safeguard its citizens and the northern towns and villages in which they lived. Israel had no designs on Lebanese territory. The security zone was a temporary arrangement until such time as the Lebanese Government was able to take effective control of the situation in southern Lebanon and guarantee peace and security along the border.

The instability in southern Lebanon was only part of the even greater tragedy facing Lebanon. There was simply no central authority in Lebanon that could end the chaos and violence.

UNIFIL, which played an important role in trying to maintain stability in the area under its control, had suffered painful casualties. Every effort should be made to ensure UNIFIL's security in order to safeguard the lives of its soldiers. Israel had conveyed its willingness to co-operate fully with the United Nations in that regard, and was ready to consider any viable proposal that would adequately take account of its legitimate security concerns.

Sir Crispin Tickell (United Kingdom) said it was disappointing that there had been no change in Israel's position that would allow progress towards giving effect to resolution 425. The main problem lay in Israel's refusal to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon and its retention of a so-called security zone. The United Kingdom condemned hostile action against UNIFIL, from whatever quarter it originated.

Roland M. Timerbaev (USSR) said responsibility for the unstable situation in southern Lebanon was borne by Israel, whose determination to retain control of its so-called security zone continued to impede efforts to restore peace in southern Lebanon. Tel Aviv was taking "inhumane' actions with regard to the "Lebanese patriots' who were fighting the Israeli occupation. There had never been a more pressing need for an unconditional and immediate withdrawal of Israeli troops from the whole of Lebanon. UNIFIL's presence must promote a solution of that task.

Pierre-Louis Blanc (France) said France was committed to UNIFIL's role in the context of the situation in southern Lebanon, in spite of the difficulties the Force had encountered in implementing its mandate. France felt growing concern at the violent and often deliberate actions that were being engaged in by different sides against the Force. UNIFIL should be treated with the respect due members of a peace-keeping force.

Its presence in southern Lebanon remained an essential element of stability in the region and demonstrated the international community's will to see Lebanon's sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity restored and respected.

Photo: "Territorial integrity, sovereignty, independence . . .'