UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTIONS ON
LEBANON
October
25, 1993 Aside
from the Israeli withdrawal from South Lebanon, which we are all too familiar
with, the United Nations address several issues which are intricately connected
to the Israeli withdrawal as predicated by the enclosed documents. In
almost all its documents the U.N. "Calls for strict respect for the
territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within
its internationally recognized boundaries." These calls are not directed
specifically towards any particular party and clearly include all those who
infringe on Lebanon. This is further expanded upon in Resolution 520 - the last
major resolution on Lebanon, other than the semi-annual extension of the UNIFIL
mandate - were the U.N. calls for the same "under the sole and exclusive
authority of the Government of Lebanon through the Lebanese Army throughout
Lebanon." U.N.
Resolutions and Statements also make clear their determination to end all
hostilities within Lebanon and across the Lebanese-Israeli border. The U.N.
makes specific references to "de facto forces" operating from Lebanon
and through the UNIFIL zone, and all those supporting and supplying the de facto
forces. Thus
compliance with U.N. Resolutions and international law would entail all armed
forces, regular and irregular, with the exception of the Lebanese Armed Forces,
to leave Lebanon and refrain from initiating, supporting or abetting any
hostilities within or through Lebanese territories. In
contrast to the often heard unconditional withdrawal of Israeli forces, the U.N.
states that the Governments of Lebanon and Israel must meet to reach an
agreement on the modalities of withdrawal and establishing international peace
across their international borders. This is clearly spelled out in the Report of
the Secretary-General of the United Nations on the Implementation of Security
Council Resolution 425. The
Report reasserts the validity of the General Armistice Agreement between Lebanon
and Israel, also referenced repeatedly throughout the U.N. documentation, as the
basic framework for Lebanese Israeli relations. The UNIFIL is established to
return South Lebanon to Lebanese Government Authority, reactivate the Mixed
Armistice Commission, and end any and all hostilities. The
General Armistice Agreement as stated remains legally binding to both parties
and with the possible exception of the military presence in the border zones,
remains valid as an transitional process from war to peace. The Agreement
stipulates the end of all hostilities from any party across the border and
establishing a mixed Armistice Commission to resolve the two country's disputes. In
this light, any call for unconditional withdrawal without Lebanese Armed Forces
guarantees that South Lebanon would not be used to launch attacks on Israel
fails to muster international support. Also, the continued operations of the
so-called "Resistance" through UNIFIL areas and beyond the control of
the Lebanese Government is a clear violation of U.N. Resolutions and provides
Israel with international legal justification to maintain its forces in South
Lebanon, thus prolonging the suffering of Southern Lebanese. In
spite of the standstill resulting from Israel and the "Resistance"
using each other as justification for their own existence, their is a single
point of convergence between Lebanon, Israel and the U.N. Returning South
Lebanon to the Sole and exclusive authority of the Lebanese Army. In this regard
bringing the areas north of the "Security Zone" under Lebanese
Government control and ending the military operations across the UNIFIL zone,
would fulfill the U.N. stipulation, the Israeli condition for withdrawal and the
Lebanese Government objectives, serving as the logical fist step for a peaceful
settlement of the conflict. We
understand that many elements of the "Resistance" have no interest in
Lebanese Authority in the South and thus would oppose such a step. However from
a Lebanese national perspective and in the interest of international peace the
return of law and order to South Lebanon is a must for the future of Lebanon and
the region. By proving its ability to control activity within its areas, the
Lebanese Government would be able to bring the international community to bare
on Israel to withdraw by depriving it from the "Security concerns"
justification it presently enjoys. Ziad
Nassar President |