Nations Reluctant to Commit Troops to Lebanon
PaperPlates
Posts: 1,745
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/24/world/middleeast/24cnd-force.html?ei=5065&en=4f620cd6e5373c63&ex=1154404800&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print
By ELAINE SCIOLINO and STEVEN ERLANGER
PARIS, July 24 — Support is building quickly for an international military force to be placed in southern Lebanon, but there remains a small problem: where will the troops come from?
The United States has ruled out its soldiers participating, NATO says it is overstretched, Britain feels its troops are overcommitted and Germany says it is willing to participate only if Hezbollah, the Lebanese militia which it would police, agrees to it, a highly unlikely development.
“All the politicians are saying, ‘Great, great’ to the idea of a force, but no one is saying whose soldiers will be on the ground,” said one senior European official. “Everyone will volunteer to be in charge of the logistics in Cyprus.”
There has been strong verbal support for such a force in public, but also private concerns that soldiers would be seen as allied to Israel and would have to fight Hezbollah guerrillas who do not want foreigners, let alone the Lebanese Army, coming between themselves and the Israelis.
There is also the burden of history. France — which has called the idea of a force premature — and the United States are haunted by their last participation in a multinational force in Lebanon after the Israeli invasion in 1982, when they became belligerents in the Lebanese civil war and tangled fatally with Hezbollah.
They withdrew in defeat after Hezbollah’s suicide bombing of a Marine barracks in Beirut in October 1983, which killed 241 Marines and 56 French soldiers.
Israel’s own public position toward an international force has been welcoming, but skeptical, insisting that the force be capable of military missions, not just peace-keeping.
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert suggested that the force, with military capability and fighting experience, could be made up of soldiers from European and Arab states, while his defense minister, Amir Peretz, spoke of soldiers from NATO countries.
But Israel senses no great willingness among leading European countries to take part, and Israeli officials emphasize that they will not accept an end to hostilities until clear policy goals are met.
For the moment, at least, Israel is laying out an ambitious, if perhaps unrealistic, view of what the force would do. Israel wants it to keep Hezbollah away from the border, allow the Lebanese government and army to take control over all of its territory, and monitor Lebanon’s borders to ensure that Hezbollah is not resupplied with weapons.
Israel’s foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, laid out the goals in a meeting on Sunday with a British Foreign Office minister, Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier of Germany and Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy of France. Ms. Livni told them that Israel’s goal was to disarm Hezbollah and that either the Israeli Army or an international force would have to do it, said officials familiar with the meeting.
The Europeans, by contrast, including Britain, France and Germany, envision a much less robust international buffer force, one that would follow a cease-fire and operate with the consent of the Lebanese government to support the deployment of its army in southern Lebanon.
Such a scenario would mean that Hezbollah, which is part of the Lebanese government, would have to be part of a decision that led to its own disarming and the protection of Israel, a scenario that European officials see as far-fetched.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who began a trip to the region today with a quick first stop in Beirut, will host an international meeting on the crisis in Rome on Wednesday, when an multinational force will be a prime topic of conversation. But she already has ruled out the participation of American troops.
Today, Germany’s defense minister, Franz Josef Jung, said that Berlin would be willing to participate if both Israel and Hezbollah requested German participation and if certain tough, and potentially insurmountable, conditions were met. These include a cease-fire and the release of the captured Israeli soldiers.
“We could not refuse a peace mission of this nature if these conditions were met, and if requests were directed to us,” Mr. Jung told German television station N24.
In London, Prime Minister Tony Blair said he hoped a plan, including an international force, a mutual cease-fire and the release of the captured soldiers, could be negotiated and announced in the next few days.
“If someone’s got a better plan, I’d like to hear it,” he said. “It’s the only one I’ve got and I’m trying to make it happen.”
But Britain has also made clear in private diplomatic exchanges that with thousands of its troops in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Balkans, it could not be counted on to send troops into still another theater.
As for France, which already has troops in Lebanon as part of the United Nations peacekeeping force known as Unifil, Mr. Douste-Blazy left his meetings with Israeli leaders on Sunday convinced that the idea of a new international force for Lebanon was “premature,” French officials said.
The European Union foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, said today in Brussels that an international force would not be “an easy force to deploy,” but added that talks were under way about such a force under a United Nations Security Council mandate.
“I think several member states of the European Union will be ready to provide all necessary assistance,” he said, but did not name the countries or what they might be prepared to do.
Mr. Solana is said to be wary of a NATO-led force, another senior European Union official said. “NATO is too identified with the United States,” the official said. “It would be Iraq all over again.”
At NATO headquarters, officials said they were taken by surprise by comments of Israeli officials that they would welcome a NATO-led force to secure their border.
“No request has been made to NATO,” said James Appathurai, the NATO spokesman. “The possibility, the shape, the structure of any international force — none of them has been seriously addressed.”
In an ambitious new mission, NATO is due to take over military operations from the American-led coalition in Afghanistan at the end of the month.
The challenge of creating a viable international force to secure Israel’s border with Lebanon was captured by Nahum Barnea, a columnist for the Israeli daily newspaper Yediot Aharonot. The European foreign ministers were enthusiastic, he said.
“They only had one small condition for the force to be made up of soldiers from another country,” Mr. Barnea wrote. “The Germans recommended France; the French recommended Egypt, and so on. It is doubtful whether there is a single country in the West currently volunteering to lay down its soldiers on Hezbollah’s fence.”
By ELAINE SCIOLINO and STEVEN ERLANGER
PARIS, July 24 — Support is building quickly for an international military force to be placed in southern Lebanon, but there remains a small problem: where will the troops come from?
The United States has ruled out its soldiers participating, NATO says it is overstretched, Britain feels its troops are overcommitted and Germany says it is willing to participate only if Hezbollah, the Lebanese militia which it would police, agrees to it, a highly unlikely development.
“All the politicians are saying, ‘Great, great’ to the idea of a force, but no one is saying whose soldiers will be on the ground,” said one senior European official. “Everyone will volunteer to be in charge of the logistics in Cyprus.”
There has been strong verbal support for such a force in public, but also private concerns that soldiers would be seen as allied to Israel and would have to fight Hezbollah guerrillas who do not want foreigners, let alone the Lebanese Army, coming between themselves and the Israelis.
There is also the burden of history. France — which has called the idea of a force premature — and the United States are haunted by their last participation in a multinational force in Lebanon after the Israeli invasion in 1982, when they became belligerents in the Lebanese civil war and tangled fatally with Hezbollah.
They withdrew in defeat after Hezbollah’s suicide bombing of a Marine barracks in Beirut in October 1983, which killed 241 Marines and 56 French soldiers.
Israel’s own public position toward an international force has been welcoming, but skeptical, insisting that the force be capable of military missions, not just peace-keeping.
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert suggested that the force, with military capability and fighting experience, could be made up of soldiers from European and Arab states, while his defense minister, Amir Peretz, spoke of soldiers from NATO countries.
But Israel senses no great willingness among leading European countries to take part, and Israeli officials emphasize that they will not accept an end to hostilities until clear policy goals are met.
For the moment, at least, Israel is laying out an ambitious, if perhaps unrealistic, view of what the force would do. Israel wants it to keep Hezbollah away from the border, allow the Lebanese government and army to take control over all of its territory, and monitor Lebanon’s borders to ensure that Hezbollah is not resupplied with weapons.
Israel’s foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, laid out the goals in a meeting on Sunday with a British Foreign Office minister, Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier of Germany and Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy of France. Ms. Livni told them that Israel’s goal was to disarm Hezbollah and that either the Israeli Army or an international force would have to do it, said officials familiar with the meeting.
The Europeans, by contrast, including Britain, France and Germany, envision a much less robust international buffer force, one that would follow a cease-fire and operate with the consent of the Lebanese government to support the deployment of its army in southern Lebanon.
Such a scenario would mean that Hezbollah, which is part of the Lebanese government, would have to be part of a decision that led to its own disarming and the protection of Israel, a scenario that European officials see as far-fetched.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who began a trip to the region today with a quick first stop in Beirut, will host an international meeting on the crisis in Rome on Wednesday, when an multinational force will be a prime topic of conversation. But she already has ruled out the participation of American troops.
Today, Germany’s defense minister, Franz Josef Jung, said that Berlin would be willing to participate if both Israel and Hezbollah requested German participation and if certain tough, and potentially insurmountable, conditions were met. These include a cease-fire and the release of the captured Israeli soldiers.
“We could not refuse a peace mission of this nature if these conditions were met, and if requests were directed to us,” Mr. Jung told German television station N24.
In London, Prime Minister Tony Blair said he hoped a plan, including an international force, a mutual cease-fire and the release of the captured soldiers, could be negotiated and announced in the next few days.
“If someone’s got a better plan, I’d like to hear it,” he said. “It’s the only one I’ve got and I’m trying to make it happen.”
But Britain has also made clear in private diplomatic exchanges that with thousands of its troops in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Balkans, it could not be counted on to send troops into still another theater.
As for France, which already has troops in Lebanon as part of the United Nations peacekeeping force known as Unifil, Mr. Douste-Blazy left his meetings with Israeli leaders on Sunday convinced that the idea of a new international force for Lebanon was “premature,” French officials said.
The European Union foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, said today in Brussels that an international force would not be “an easy force to deploy,” but added that talks were under way about such a force under a United Nations Security Council mandate.
“I think several member states of the European Union will be ready to provide all necessary assistance,” he said, but did not name the countries or what they might be prepared to do.
Mr. Solana is said to be wary of a NATO-led force, another senior European Union official said. “NATO is too identified with the United States,” the official said. “It would be Iraq all over again.”
At NATO headquarters, officials said they were taken by surprise by comments of Israeli officials that they would welcome a NATO-led force to secure their border.
“No request has been made to NATO,” said James Appathurai, the NATO spokesman. “The possibility, the shape, the structure of any international force — none of them has been seriously addressed.”
In an ambitious new mission, NATO is due to take over military operations from the American-led coalition in Afghanistan at the end of the month.
The challenge of creating a viable international force to secure Israel’s border with Lebanon was captured by Nahum Barnea, a columnist for the Israeli daily newspaper Yediot Aharonot. The European foreign ministers were enthusiastic, he said.
“They only had one small condition for the force to be made up of soldiers from another country,” Mr. Barnea wrote. “The Germans recommended France; the French recommended Egypt, and so on. It is doubtful whether there is a single country in the West currently volunteering to lay down its soldiers on Hezbollah’s fence.”
Why go home
www.myspace.com/jensvad
www.myspace.com/jensvad
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments