What are peacekeepers for? More than once, Jean-Pierre Lacroix was asked the question. Since 2017, the French diplomat has been the deputy secretary general of the United Nations in charge of peacekeeping operations. In seven years of mandate, controversies over the impotence of UN missions have added up, not to mention the scandals of alleged sexual abuse committed by soldiers of these forces in the Central African Republic.
In Lebanon, today it is UNIFIL, one of the 11 UN peacekeeping operations in the world, which is being blamed by the Israeli government. This force of 10,400 men, deployed since the first invasion of southern Lebanon by Israel in 1978, is caught between the fires of Hezbollah and the Israeli army. In a few days, five peacekeepers were injured by IDF fire, and several bases were subject to incursions.
Does his mandate still have meaning in the current war? What about other UN operations, so much criticized? “The United Nations only has space to act effectively to the extent that member states give them this power,” recalls Jean-Pierre Lacroix. Unfortunately, most crises today are the subject of competition between powers in these cases, the space for a multilateral and collective solution is very limited, if not non-existent. Interview.
L’Express: The Israeli army denounces the existence of tunnels dug by Hamas near a UNIFIL outpost. How is this possible?
Jean-Pierre Lacroix : The mandate of UNIFIL, voted by the Security Council, is to support the parties who must themselves implement resolution 1701. Adopted in 2006, it provides the elements of a political solution, in particular the complete restoration of Lebanese sovereignty over the entire territory and control by the Lebanese authorities of the weapons present on its soil. UNIFIL therefore does not have the role of implementing Resolution 1701 itself. On this point, there is confusion, deliberately maintained by some, which comes from ignorance for others. Furthermore, UNIFIL also has no mandate to enter private properties by force and inspect what is happening in the basements, from which tunnels can originate.
In addition, this force has repeatedly been hampered by access restrictions and incidents hindering our freedom of movement. UNIFIL is doing everything possible, when land access is limited, to try to observe what is happening by other means, but we remain limited. Furthermore, Lebanon is a country that does not have a land register, so it is not clear what is private property or not. Land may very well be claimed by an actor on the ground without it being possible to really verify it. Ultimately, it is therefore up to the different parties to seriously apply Resolution 1701. If that day comes, UNIFIL will be there to support them. This means deconfliction, preventing small incidents or preventing these incidents from escalating. This is what we did on numerous occasions, before the outbreak of hostilities. Of course, we are now in a different situation.
To be very concrete, on these tunnels, UNIFIL saw nothing?
I do not want to comment on the elements communicated by Israel, in accordance with the rule which governs all our peacekeeping operations: we only report facts that we can directly observe ourselves. Otherwise it would be enough for one party or another to say that this happened, with supporting photos, for us to talk about it as facts. We would lose all credibility. Concerning these tunnels, these are elements communicated by the Israeli side in a particularly tense context, following a series of incidents which took place recently between the Israeli armed forces and UNIFIL.
So UNIFIL had not noted such facts?
If you look at the UNIFIL reports, you will see that they report numerous violations of different orders, which left no doubt that the parties – both Israel and Hezbollah – are not implementing Resolution 1701. Several examples bear witness to this: violations of Lebanese airspace by Israel; movement restrictions imposed on UNIFIL; limitation of access to certain places, in particular by Green without Borders – this organization presented as ecological [NDLR : Israël l’accuse de servir de couverture au Hezbollah. Dans un rapport de 2020, la Finul indique que “malgré des demandes répétées, elle n’a toujours pas eu un plein accès à plusieurs lieux qui présentent un intérêt, notamment les sites de Green without Borders”].
“The problem today is that we are missing a fundamental element: the unity of the United Nations Security Council.”
Despite all these obstacles, UNIFIL has played an important role throughout its history. There were constant incidents between the parties, more or less serious. UNIFIL played a fundamental role in preventing these incidents from escalating. We must also remember its role in supporting populations, in humanitarian aid – which we try to continue to do today, even if it is more difficult.
Some are calling for changes to UNIFIL’s mandate. What do you say?
We depend on the decision of the member states of the Security Council on this point. It seems to me that it is quite illusory to think that a third force could impose the implementation of resolution 1701, therefore the application of a political settlement, if the parties are not ready to do it themselves. . This would amount to imposing this regulation by force. Who would be ready to do it? Third countries that would send their own soldiers to war? This doesn’t make any sense. A peacekeeping force is there to support any party to a conflict in the context of a political settlement.
In the space of a few days, five peacekeepers were injured by gunfire and several UNIFIL bases were subject to incursions. What do you think is the goal of the Israeli army? Do you maintain a dialogue with her?
We maintain a dialogue at all levels with the Israeli authorities, I myself saw the Israeli ambassador to the United Nations two days ago. Spanish General Aroldo Lázaro Sáenz, who commands UNIFIL, is in contact with his interlocutors in the Israeli army, and we have a functioning officer-level liaison mechanism. Are we satisfied with everything the force demands? No. But I observe that certain movements were able to be organized thanks to contacts between the Israeli army and UNIFIL, which also works with the Lebanese army.
Benjamin Netanyahu gives the impression of no longer wanting UNIFIL on site in South Lebanon, he has also called for the withdrawal of the Blue Helmets…
I do not want to prejudge his intentions, especially since the Israeli Foreign Minister recently declared that Israel attached “great importance to the activities of UNIFIL”. We have taken note of these statements. Concerning the incidents which affected our peacekeepers, we have of course protested and recalled the obligations imposed on all parties, which are to respect the security of the peacekeepers. Furthermore, Israeli authorities indicated that there would be investigations into these incidents. We take note of this and above all we hope that this will not happen again.
This debate on UNIFIL joins others on the impotence of Blue Helmets, whose mandate is often to maintain peace in states at war. Do these “interposition forces” still have any meaning?
First, the Blue Helmets still monitor ceasefires today – these ceasefires are holding, more or less of course. In Cyprus, on the Golan Heights or in Western Sahara, for example. In these cases, where the mandate of the Blue Helmets is limited to respecting a ceasefire, it is a question of “monitoring the peace”, but of course this peace is not perfect, otherwise there is no would not need an operation. These are fragile, unstable peaces, with incidents that must be resolved through permanent contact with the parties.
“The United Nations only has space to act effectively to the extent that member states give it this power.”
In the history of peacekeeping operations, some have had more complex mandates, providing support for political efforts to implement a settlement, the protection of civilians, and the recovery of countries affected by the crisis. There, the list of successes, that is to say countries which have regained stability with the support of peacekeeping operations (and not thanks to them), is very long: Sierra Leone , Liberia, East Timor, Angola, Cambodia in the 1990s, El Salvador, etc. The problem today is that we are missing a fundamental element: the unity of the United Nations Security Council. An operation, whatever it may be, is always there to support the implementation of a peace settlement. But it is not enough. It must be accompanied by the active and united efforts of member states to support the parties and put pressure on them. However, today we no longer have this unity. As a result, in most of the situations we find ourselves in, the settlement processes do not move forward.
The ultimate goal of peacekeeping is to create the conditions for a political solution to be implemented, after which we can leave and leave a stabilized situation, as was the case in Ivory Coast, Liberia , in Sierra Leone and many other countries. Today we have cases, like Mali, which have become subjects of confrontation between two groups of states within the United Nations Security Council [NDLR : En janvier 2022, par exemple, la Russie et la Chine ont bloqué un texte en faveur de sanctions contre la junte malienne]. This standoff within the UN Security Council itself condemns peacekeeping operations to intermediate objectives, namely preserving a ceasefire as far as possible or creating security zones for civilian populations. Hundreds of thousands of people are protected daily by peacekeeping operations. This prevents some very distressed countries from collapsing completely. But these are only intermediate objectives, which can create frustration and the feeling that the results are not there.
The reproaches made to the Blue Helmets also refer to a more general criticism of the impotence of the UN…
Once again, the United Nations only has space to act effectively to the extent that member states give it this power. If and only if, in a crisis situation, the member states of the Security Council give priority to the choice of collective and multilateral efforts over competition. Unfortunately, most crises today are the subject of competition between powers. In these cases, the space for a multilateral and collective solution is very limited, if not non-existent.
.