thediplomaticlens

[thediplomaticlens]

UNIFIL and the illusion of stability

When the “buffer zone” no longer works

Author: Shokhrukhmirzo Ubaydullaev

UNIFIL (United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon) was conceived as a symbol of international solidarity and stability. After decades of presence, billions of dollars, and hundreds of resolutions, we are faced with a simple yet inconvenient truth: the mission that was supposed to be a temporary solution has turned into a senseless and politically toxic presence. Ineffective, locked in political compromises, and unable to adapt, UNIFIL has become a part of the problem rather than its solution. It’s time to close this chapter.

When UNIFIL appeared in 1978, its mission was clear: to confirm the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory and restore international peace. However, over the years, the goals have mutated. After the 2006 conflict involving Israel and Hezbollah, the mandate was expanded, and UNIFIL was tasked with assisting the Lebanese army in controlling the south of the country and preventing conflict[1]. On paper, these were notable tasks. In reality, they are facade. 

Hezbollah firmly controls southern Lebanon, and peacekeepers most often observe, but do not act. Their movements are restricted, access to strategic areas is prohibited or complicated. UNIFIL has repeatedly become a target – not only physical, but also political. Israel accuses of passivity, and the Lebanese population of bias. As political scientists Tina Fakhoury (2021) notes, many in Lebanon no longer perceive peacekeepers as neutral mediators: “UNIFIL has turned into a static body that observes the conflict rather than seeks to resolve it.” 

This immobility is particularly dangerous. It creates a false sense of stability. It seems that the presence of 10,000 UN soldiers keeps a delicate balance. However, below the surface, there is a flaring conflict. Hezbollah’s strategic initiatives, Israeli air strikes, and tension along the “green line” – all this does not disappear; it just masks. International peacekeepers have become a symbol of a protracted conflict rather than its solution

UNIFIL legitimacy and international standing have eroded, leaving it in a precarious position. Peacekeeping operations rely heavily on two key factors: legitimacy and perception. As soon as the parties to the conflict or the local population doubt the mission’s neutrality, its effectiveness is compromised. UNIFIL serves as a stark example of this. Israel has consistently criticised UNIFIL’s inability to control Hezbollah’s activities, while Shiite communities in southern Lebanon, where most of the mission’s bases are located, increasingly view peacekeepers as unwanted guests or even spies of the West[2].

This “double alienation” is detrimental to the mission’s success. A strong correlation between the perception of peacekeeping mission’s neutrality by both sides and their success[3]. In this case of UNIFIL, this trust has been undermined by both parties. Peacekeepers find themselves in a political vacuum, lacking recognition from either allies or opponents. Moreover, their presence has become a convenient excuse for inaction. When tensions escalate, the international community often relies on UNIFIL, expecting peacekeepers to “hold” the border between two adversaries. However, they only delay the inevitable need to reevaluate Lebanese security measures. 

The economic dimension further complicates the situation. Maintaining UNIFIL incurs significant costs, amounting to nearly half a billion dollars annually [4]. Despite these resources, the mission has achieved no measurable successes. It has failed to disarm Hezbollah, promote sustainable peace, or prevent provocations. Considering a global shortage of humanitarian and peacekeeping funds, these resources could be allocated more effectively to Lebanese internal reform programs or strengthening national institutions. 

The question remains: is the world better off with UNIFIL, or is it a chance for a more effective approach to peacekeeping? 

The closure of UNIFIL inevitably raises concerns about the potential for war. However, it’s worth considering another question: what does the peacekeeping mission achieve in preventing conflict? When faced with a limited mandate, political neutrality, and a lack of freedom of action, peacekeepers can become mere observers, rather than stability factors. Their presence may even contribute to political self-forgetting. UNIFIL is unable to prevent the next escalation, doesn’t offer a diplomatic exit, doesn’t reduce the level of weapons, and doesn’t contribute to the transformation of the conflict. Moreover, its presence allows international players to avoid making real decision. Peacekeeping efforts that are not focussed on transformation at best freeze the conflict, while in the worst case, they immortalise it[5].

Instead of militarised contingent, Lebanon needs diplomatic and institutional tools. Support for reforms, the development of the Lebanese army, and the return to regional dialogue with the participation of Iran, the Gulf countries, the EU, and the United States are areas that could truly change the status quo. The termination of UNIFIL would free up political and diplomatic space for these initiatives.

In conclusion, it’s time to consider leaving.

UNIFIL didn’t lose in the traditional sense, he didn’t surrender or leave under pressure. However, he was exhausted himself, his goals are unattainable in the current context, and his presence has become a symbol of international inaction. Sometimes, leavening is not a weakness but a strength. The closure of UNIFIL would be a signal that the international community is no longer ready to support meaningless designs for the sake of stability. It’s time to move from inertia to action.