Franklin Kramer, a former assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs from 1996 to 2001, asks a number of questions about the UN peacekeeping force to be deployed in Lebanon. He points out five key questions that will determine whether the force actually can accomplish anything of value.
First, what is the mission of the force? It may seem obvious that the overall purpose is to limit the use of violence. But the key question is how the force proposes to do that. Will it be an observer force, a reactive force or a force designed to create new conditions on the ground? To put it another way, will the force actively take on Hezbollah, will it leave that task to others, or will Hezbollah in effect be left alone? Over time, Hezbollah will seek to regain military strength. Will the peacekeeping force seek to ensure that Hezbollah has as little capacity as possible to commit violence? That was the purpose of the force put into Bosnia, and there the peacekeepers maintained the monopoly on violence. Lebanon will be a much harder task, but unless controlling violence is an affirmative mission, the peacekeeping effort is unlikely to succeed in the long-term.
It seems that the promised "robust force" is not working out right now since the European governments, France in particular, are not supporting the effort. One of the main sticking points appears to be this very issue. There is no clear mandate or rules of engagement for the force. Nor does the UN appear interested in clarifying those issues. The other questions are as vexing as the first.
No answers to Kramer's question appear to be forthcoming from Turtle Bay. The UN is stumbling along with no goals and no plan. This ceasefire will not hold long, and I rather suspect the UN, France and the other European governments all know that.
