Permanent Cease Fire Resolution
by The United Nations for Lebanon and Israel August 11, 2006
Resolution According to the UN
website 8-14, 2006
The full text of Security Council resolution 1701 (2006) reads as follows
“The Security Council,
“Recalling all its previous resolutions on Lebanon, in particular resolutions
425 (1978), 426 (1978), 520 (1982), 1559 (2004), 1655 (2006) 1680 (2006) and
1697 (2006), as well as the statements of its President on the situation in
Lebanon, in particular the statements of 18 June 2000 (S/PRST/2000/21), of
19 October 2004 (S/PRST/2004/36), of 4 May 2005 (S/PRST/2005/17), of 23 January
2006 (S/PRST/2006/3) and of 30 July 2006 (S/PRST/2006/35),
“Expressing its utmost concern at the continuing escalation of hostilities
in Lebanon and in Israel since Hizbollah’s attack on Israel on 12 July
2006, which has already caused hundreds of deaths and injuries on both sides,
extensive damage to civilian infrastructure and hundreds of thousands of internally
displaced persons,
“Emphasizing the need for an end of violence, but at the same time emphasizing
the need to address urgently the causes that have given rise to the current
crisis, including by the unconditional release of the abducted Israeli soldiers,
“Mindful of the sensitivity of the issue of prisoners and encouraging
the efforts aimed at urgently settling the issue of the Lebanese prisoners
detained in Israel,
“Welcoming the efforts of the Lebanese Prime Minister and the commitment
of the Government of Lebanon, in its seven-point plan, to extend its authority
over its territory, through its own legitimate armed forces, such that there
will be no weapons without the consent of the Government of Lebanon and no
authority other than that of the Government of Lebanon, welcoming also its
commitment to a United Nations force that is supplemented and enhanced in
numbers, equipment, mandate and scope of operation, and bearing in mind its
request in this plan for an immediate withdrawal of the Israeli forces from
southern Lebanon,
“Determined to act for this withdrawal to happen at the earliest,
“Taking due note of the proposals made in the seven-point plan regarding
the Shebaa farms area,
“Welcoming the unanimous decision by the Government of Lebanon on 7 August
2006 to deploy a Lebanese armed force of 15,000 troops in South Lebanon as
the Israeli army withdraws behind the Blue Line and to request the assistance
of additional forces from UNIFIL as needed, to facilitate the entry of the
Lebanese armed forces into the region and to restate its intention to strengthen
the Lebanese armed forces with material as needed to enable it to perform
its duties,
“Aware of its responsibilities to help secure a permanent ceasefire and
a long-term solution to the conflict,
“Determining that the situation in Lebanon constitutes a threat to international
peace and security,
“1. Calls for a full cessation of hostilities based upon,
in particular, the immediate cessation by Hizbollah of all attacks and the
immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations;
“2. Upon full cessation of hostilities, calls upon the Government
of Lebanon and UNIFIL as authorized by paragraph 11 to deploy their forces
together throughout the South and calls upon the Government of Israel, as
that deployment begins, to withdraw all of its forces from southern Lebanon
in parallel;
“3. Emphasizes the importance of the extension of the control
of the Government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory in accordance with
the provisions of resolution 1559 (2004) and resolution 1680 (2006), and of
the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, for it to exercise its full sovereignty,
so that there will be no weapons without the consent of the Government of
Lebanon and no authority other than that of the Government of Lebanon;
“4. Reiterates its strong support for full respect for the
Blue Line;
“5. Also reiterates its strong support, as recalled in all
its previous relevant resolutions, for the territorial integrity, sovereignty
and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized
borders, as contemplated by the Israeli-Lebanese General Armistice Agreement
of 23 March 1949;
“6. Calls on the international community to take immediate
steps to extend its financial and humanitarian assistance to the Lebanese
people, including through facilitating the safe return of displaced persons
and, under the authority of the Government of Lebanon, reopening airports
and harbours, consistent with paragraphs 14 and 15, and calls on it also to
consider further assistance in the future to contribute to the reconstruction
and development of Lebanon;
“7. Affirms that all parties are responsible for ensuring
that no action is taken contrary to paragraph 1 that might adversely affect
the search for a long-term solution, humanitarian access to civilian populations,
including safe passage for humanitarian convoys, or the voluntary and safe
return of displaced persons, and calls on all parties to comply with this
responsibility and to cooperate with the Security Council;
“8. Calls for Israel and Lebanon to support a permanent ceasefire
and a long-term solution based on the following principles and elements:
-- full respect for the Blue Line by both parties;
-- security arrangements to prevent the resumption of hostilities, including
the establishment between the Blue Line and the Litani river of an area free
of any armed personnel, assets and weapons other than those of the Government
of Lebanon and of UNIFIL as authorized in paragraph 11, deployed in this area;
-- full implementation of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, and
of resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006), that require the disarmament of
all armed groups in Lebanon, so that, pursuant to the Lebanese cabinet decision
of 27 July 2006, there will be no weapons or authority in Lebanon other than
that of the Lebanese State;
-- no foreign forces in Lebanon without the consent of its Government;
-- no sales or supply of arms and related materiel to Lebanon except as authorized
by its Government;
-- provision to the United Nations of all remaining maps of land mines in
Lebanon in Israel’s possession;
“9. Invites the Secretary-General to support efforts to secure
as soon as possible agreements in principle from the Government of Lebanon
and the Government of Israel to the principles and elements for a long-term
solution as set forth in paragraph 8, and expresses its intention to be actively
involved;
“10. Requests the Secretary-General to develop, in liaison with
relevant international actors and the concerned parties, proposals to implement
the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, and resolutions 1559 (2004) and
1680 (2006), including disarmament, and for delineation of the international
borders of Lebanon, especially in those areas where the border is disputed
or uncertain, including by dealing with the Shebaa farms area, and to present
to the Security Council those proposals within thirty days;
“11. Decides, in order to supplement and enhance the force in numbers,
equipment, mandate and scope of operations, to authorize an increase in the
force strength of UNIFIL to a maximum of 15,000 troops, and that the force
shall, in addition to carrying out its mandate under resolutions 425 and 426
(1978):
(a) Monitor the cessation of hostilities;
(b) Accompany and support the Lebanese armed forces as they deploy
throughout the South, including along the Blue Line, as Israel withdraws its
armed forces from Lebanon as provided in paragraph 2;
(c) Coordinate its activities related to paragraph 11 (b) with
the Government of Lebanon and the Government of Israel;
(d) Extend its assistance to help ensure humanitarian access to
civilian populations and the voluntary and safe return of displaced persons;
(e) Assist the Lebanese armed forces in taking steps towards the
establishment of the area as referred to in paragraph 8;
(f) Assist the Government of Lebanon, at its request, to implement
paragraph 14;
“12. Acting in support of a request from the Government of Lebanon
to deploy an international force to assist it to exercise its authority throughout
the territory, authorizes UNIFIL to take all necessary action in areas of
deployment of its forces and as it deems within its capabilities, to ensure
that its area of operations is not utilized for hostile activities of any
kind, to resist attempts by forceful means to prevent it from discharging
its duties under the mandate of the Security Council, and to protect United
Nations personnel, facilities, installations and equipment, ensure the security
and freedom of movement of United Nations personnel, humanitarian workers
and, without prejudice to the responsibility of the Government of Lebanon,
to protect civilians under imminent threat of physical violence;
“13. Requests the Secretary-General urgently to put in place measures
to ensure UNIFIL is able to carry out the functions envisaged in this resolution,
urges Member States to consider making appropriate contributions to UNIFIL
and to respond positively to requests for assistance from the Force, and expresses
its strong appreciation to those who have contributed to UNIFIL in the past;
“14. Calls upon the Government of Lebanon to secure its borders
and other entry points to prevent the entry in Lebanon without its consent
of arms or related materiel and requests UNIFIL as authorized in paragraph
11 to assist the Government of Lebanon at its request;
“15. Decides further that all States shall take the necessary measures
to prevent, by their nationals or from their territories or using their flag
vessels or aircraft:
“(a) The sale or supply to any entity or individual in Lebanon
of arms and related materiel of all types, including weapons and ammunition,
military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary equipment, and spare parts for
the aforementioned, whether or not originating in their territories; and
“(b) The provision to any entity or individual in Lebanon of any
technical training or assistance related to the provision, manufacture, maintenance
or use of the items listed in subparagraph (a) above;
except that these prohibitions shall not apply to arms, related material,
training or assistance authorized by the Government of Lebanon or by UNIFIL
as authorized in paragraph 11;
“16. Decides to extend the mandate of UNIFIL until 31 August 2007,
and expresses its intention to consider in a later resolution further enhancements
to the mandate and other steps to contribute to the implementation of a permanent
ceasefire and a long-term solution;
“17. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Council within
one week on the implementation of this resolution and subsequently on a regular
basis;
“18. Stresses the importance of, and the need to achieve, a comprehensive,
just and lasting peace in the Middle East, based on all its relevant resolutions
including its resolutions 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967, 338 (1973) of 22
October 1973 and 1515 (2003) of 18 November 2003;
“19. Decides to remain actively seized of the matter.”
Background
The Security Council met this evening to consider the situation in the Middle
East.
Statement by Secretary-General
KOFI ANNAN, United Nations Secretary-General, welcomed the resolution ahead
of the Council’s adoption, saying he was greatly relieved that it provided
for a full and immediate cessation of all hostilities. “It is absolutely
vital that the fighting now stop”, he said, adding: “Provided
it does, I believe this resolution will make it possible to conclude a sustainable
and lasting ceasefire agreement in the days ahead. And, I hope that
this could be the beginning of a process to solve the underlying political
problems in the region through peaceful means.”
“But, I would be remiss if I did not tell you how profoundly disappointed
I am that the Council did not reach this point much, much earlier”, he
said. He was convinced that his disappointment and sense of frustration
were shared by hundreds of millions of people around the world. For
weeks now, he had been calling repeatedly for an immediate cessation of hostilities,
for the sake of the civilian population on both sides who had suffered such
terrible, unnecessary pain and loss. All Council members must be aware
that its inability to act sooner had badly shaken the world’s faith in
its authority and integrity.
Since 12 July, when Hizbollah launched an unprovoked attack on Israel, killing
eight Israeli soldiers and kidnapping two, both Lebanon and Israel had been
thrown back into the turmoil of war, death and destruction. According
to the Lebanese Government, more than 1,000 Lebanese had been killed and more
than 3,600 injured. Around a quarter of all Lebanon’s inhabitants
–- close to 1 million people –- had been displaced. Israeli
bombing had turned thousands of homes to rubble. Such devastation would
be tragic at any time. That it had been inflicted on Lebanon’s
people just when they were making real progress towards political reform and
economic recovery made it all the more so.
For its part, the Israelis had been newly awakened to a threat, which they
had hoped, with good reason, to have escaped. Some 41 Israeli civilians
had died, and hundreds of thousands had had their lives disrupted -–
being forced into shelters or to flee their homes -– by rocket attacks
from Hizbollah, which had launched its fire indiscriminately to sow the widest
possible terror. Nor had the damage been limited to Lebanon and Israel.
“A region that could ill-afford another chapter of violence, and
another source of instability, has inflamed further still”, the Secretary-General
said.
Extremists have been given new ammunition, he said. The United Nations
itself had been the target of violence and protest, despite the Organization’s
humanitarian efforts, including those of valiant peacekeepers of the United
Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), to reach people trapped in the
crossfire. He noted with pride and admiration the courage of UNIFIL
staff and all other humanitarian workers. Since July, the intense fighting
had injured 16 United Nations staff, and tragically caused the death of five.
“So this resolution comes none too soon, and it marks a vital step forward”,
he said, adding that he was glad the Council members had been able to resolve
their differences. Now, relief convoys and workers must be given a real
guarantee of safe passage and access to those who needed help. The resolution
had rightly had at its core Lebanon’s sovereignty and territorial integrity,
consistent with Council resolutions 425 (1998), 1559 (2004), and 1680 (2006).
The international community must give the Lebanese Government all possible
support, so that it could make that sovereignty effective.
The Government, acting through its regular Armed Forces and police, must be
able to assert its authority throughout the country and on all its borders,
particularly to prevent illegal and destabilizing arms flows, he said. Only
when there was one authority, and one gun, would there be a chance of lasting
stability. That implied, of course, a full and swift Israeli withdrawal
from Lebanese territory. “We now have a clear scenario for achieving
that”, he said.
He said that, while Lebanon’s decision to deploy 15,000 of the country's
Armed Forces to the south was a significant development, ready and willing
as that Army might be to undertake that task, the Government itself had acknowledged
the need for help. That made the Council’s decision to strengthen
the mandate and the numbers of UNIFIL a vital ingredient of the package.
“Now, UNIFIL faces a new task, perhaps even more difficult and dangerous
than its previous one. It must be robust and effective, and ensure that
no vacuum is left between the Israeli withdrawal and the deployment of Lebanese
forces”, he said. Obviously, if it was to carry out its new mandate,
it needed to be augmented with the utmost urgency, and provided with sophisticated
military capabilities.
“The Council cannot afford to relax for one minute”, he said, urging
its members to consult closely, and at once, with both existing and potential
troop contributors, with a view to generating the additional forces needed
as quickly as possible, “before the situation on the ground once again
spins out of control”. He urged the Council to make sure the forces
had the equipment they needed. He also appealed to all potential donors
to respond swiftly to requests from the Lebanese Government for financial
help, as it struggled to reconstruct its devastated country.
He said he would lose no time in taking up the role assigned to him in the
resolution: “We have just had a terrible lesson in the dangers
of allowing problems to fester. We must by now all know that unless
we address unfinished business, it can and will take us unawares.”
The Lebanese Cabinet would meet tomorrow, and the Israeli Cabinet, on Sunday,
to review the text. Over the weekend, he would undertake to establish
with both parties the exact date and time at which the cessation of hostilities
would come into effect.
Lebanon had been a victim for too long, he said. Mired in an incomplete
political transformation since the end of the civil war, it had remained an
arena in which both domestic and regional actors could play out their self-interested
schemes. Such exploitation of a vulnerable country was shameful and
had undermined the laudable effort of many Lebanese citizens to consolidate
their country as a sovereign, independent and democratic State. The
country and its people deserved better. They deserved the full support
of the United Nations, in their effort to cast off the chains of external
interference and domestic strife.
Doing so would require both the establishment of national consensus among
Lebanese and constructive cooperation, based on mutual goodwill and sustained
dialogue, by all relevant parties and actors on the regional level, including
the Governments of Syria and Iran.
He said that the last five weeks had reminded the world yet again what “a
fragile, tense and crisis-ridden region the Middle East has become -–
probably now more complex and difficult than ever before”. It was
now undergoing changes, shifts and realignments on a scale, and of a strategic
significance, not seen since the colonial Powers withdrew at the end of the
Second World War. Perhaps even more ominous than the physical destruction
were the changes in perception that had been occurring, both inside the region
and beyond it.
The resolution was only one step towards the comprehensive approach that was
needed. Other steps would need to be taken –- many others, he said.
In order to prevent yet another eruption of violence and bloodshed,
the international community must now be prepared to offer sustained support
and assistance for the political and economic reconstruction of Lebanon, and
also to address the broader context of crisis in the region, he declared.
In particular, he urged the world community not turn its back on the bloodshed,
suffering and hardship that continued to afflict Palestinian civilians in
Gaza and the West Bank, or the danger from Qassam rockets that continued to
threaten the Israeli communities bordering the Gaza Strip. Progress
in the Middle East peace process would undoubtedly facilitate the resolution
of conflicts elsewhere in the region, and vice versa. The various crises
in the region, therefore, must now be addressed, not in isolation or bilaterally,
but as part of a holistic and comprehensive effort, sanctioned and championed
by the Security Council, to bring peace and stability to the region as a whole.
“We must spare the people of Lebanon, of Israel, and of the wider region
any further bloodshed -- both now and in the months and years ahead”,
he said.
Speaking before the vote, CONDOLEEZA RICE, Secretary of State of the United
States, said the democratic leaders of both Lebanon and Israel worked tirelessly
on behalf of their people, with the wider international community, to achieve
the result of the Council’s efforts. With the adoption of the resolution,
the international community had opened a path that would lead to lasting peace
between both Lebanon and Israel. The United States had long called for
a ceasefire, but one that was durable and sustainable. The resolution
would allow a new, stronger Lebanon to emerge, with the world’s help.
“Now the hard work begins”, she said, noting that the text set several
key elements, including full cessation of hostilities and the unconditional
release of prisoners. The United States also believed that all parties
should take actions to protect civilians and expected both Governments to
take steps to end all violence.
She was pleased that the resolution set out the way forward for UNIFIL.
Though it bore the same name, it was not the same force. It would be
enhanced and have an expanded mandate, better equipment and a sevenfold increase
over its current number of peacekeepers. The renewed Force would deploy
into the south of the country to ensure that no armed groups such as Hizbollah
would move into the area. The resolution also set out the blueprint
for Israel’s withdrawal, and it made clear that this would be a parallel
process. She also stressed that the text called on the international
community to impose an arms ban on all weapons entering the country and she
called specifically on Iran and Syria to respect the sovereignty of the Lebanese
Government in that regard. Hizbollah also had a choice to make in the
wake of the resolution’s adoption. The text provided for no weapons,
no armed forces and no authority held or operating in the country other that
of the Government of Lebanon.
The international community must ensure the resolution bolstered the shared
drive for a just and lasting peace in the region, including Israel’s
right to live in peace and security. But today in no way marked the
end of the international community’s common efforts. “In many
respects the hard work is just beginning”, she said, stressing that no
one could expect an immediate end to all acts of violence. Trust between
the parties must be nurtured over time with the goodwill of both the Governments
and the sustained commitment of the international community. So, going
forward, the focus should first be the return of displaced Lebanese citizens
and, at the same time, jump-starting efforts to rebuild the country.
The United States would continue to work with the Governments of Israel and
Lebanon to rebuild Lebanon and provide humanitarian relief. Indeed,
she said, her country had already committed resources to the humanitarian
effort and in the coming days would do more. Today, it had increased
its initial assistance package to $50 million. Through common efforts,
the international community must help the people of Lebanon become more prosperous
than ever before. She said that the past month had been one of heartache,
suffering and loss for both Lebanon and Israel.
The resolution made it clear that the hostilities began when Hizbollah crossed
an international boundary and captured and killed Israeli soldiers and began
indiscriminately firing rockets into Israel. Hizbollah had dragged the
people of Lebanon into a war that had nothing to do with them. But it
was now time to end the violence and exploitation of the people of the Middle
East. The time had come to transform tragedy into opportunity and to
change old patterns of violence. The international community must see
this through, she said, in order to ensure that all the people of the Middle
East achieved the peace they deserved.
PHILLIPE DOUSTE-BLAZY, Minister of Foreign Affairs of France, said that, by
putting forward the present resolution, the international community was shouldering
its responsibilities to put an end to the destruction of hundreds of thousands
of displaced people on both sides of the border, and to an economic and humanitarian
situation that had grown more tragic by the day. For its part, France,
being linked to Lebanon by deep historical and cultural ties, and similarly
linked to other countries of the region, had called for two requirements to
be respected: that of allowing Lebanon’s sovereignty to be restored;
and of reaffirming Israel’s right to security.
He said that the Lebanese Government’s announcement of its intention
to deploy its Army in South Lebanon, with the help of UNIFIL, was a “historic
turning point for the country”. It was one of the decisive elements
that had made the current result possible. Indeed, the decision was
a response to a recurring request on the part of the international community,
and it was the world’s duty to respect it.
The main objective was to immediately begin a process involving the deployment
of the Lebanese Army, concurrently with the gradual, progressive withdrawal
of the Israeli Army south of the Blue Line, he said. It also appeared
essential to initiate a process to resolve the question of the delineation
of the border, including the Shebaa Farms question, which was at the heart
of the conflict. For the first time, a process was being initiated under
the auspices of the Secretary-General to deal with that issue.
He specified that the mandate given to UNIFIL by the Council was not a mandate
to impose peace. Rather, UNIFIL would assist the Lebanese Government
in deploying its Army, providing humanitarian aid and helping displaced people
return home. It would also be charged with monitoring the cessation
of hostilities and observing the parties’ respect for the permanent ceasefire
and the Blue Line. As such, France called on all the parties to strictly
respect United Nations personnel, materials and premises -- their security
must be assured in all circumstances. Already represented within UNIFIL,
France would examine, with its European partners, the possibility of providing
additional support for that force.
SHEIKH HAMAD BIN JASSIM BIN JABR AL-THANI, First Deputy Prime Minister and
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Qatar, said that, while his country’s
position had always been in support of a resolution providing for an immediate
ceasefire, it did not mean his Government was satisfied with the adoption
of a resolution “that lacked balance and overlooked the accumulated,
complicated historical, social and geopolitical factors that gave rise to
the current situation in the region”. The current resolution failed
to take adequately into consideration the interests of Lebanon, he said.
For instance, he said, the resolution did not address clearly and explicitly
the horrors and destruction caused by the Israeli aggression against the innocent
civilians and Lebanese infrastructure, and did not clearly indicate Israel’s
legal and humanitarian responsibility for the destruction. Nor did it
deal in a balanced manner with the question of Lebanese prisoners and detainees,
and abducted persons, in Israeli prisons. Nevertheless, Qatar had accepted
the resolution in its present form, so that the bloodshed of innocents was
stopped.
He said it was in his understanding that the resolution would compel both
parties to halt hostilities, and that any breaches would be dealt with according
to “The April Understanding of 1996”. Also, the resolution
would lead to the reopening of Lebanese ports and airports, and the return
of displaced persons to their homes. He welcomed the fact that the resolution
had confined itself to augmenting UNIFIL, and that its mandate would continue
to be in the context of Chapter VI of the Charter. Also, he welcomed
the fact that any reference to the international forces in the text, as assured
by the draft’s sponsors, referred to UNIFIL.
Finally, he singled out paragraph 18 of the text, which emphasized the need
for achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East.
Failure to deal effectively and objectively with root causes of the conflict
had led to a great deal of turbulence and tension in the region, which had
manifested itself in the events unfolding in Lebanon and Palestine.
Indeed, continued aggression against Gaza and its inhabitants was still being
experienced. The Council of the League of Arab States had unanimously
adopted a decision to resubmit the question of the Arab-Israeli conflict to
the Council after it was realized that the peace process, in its present form,
had failed. As such, an official request for convening a high-level
meeting of the Security Council next September would be submitted.
DORA BAKOYANNIS, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Greece, said that history
had proved time and again that neither victories in the battlefield nor blind
violence against innocent civilians would ever solve the problems of the Middle
East. Those problems needed political solutions, channelled through
diplomatic means, in a spirit of compromise, mutual respect and acceptance.
The adopted resolution offered the basis for a political solution and a framework,
with concrete goals, and specific benchmarks and timeframes.
She said that full respect for Lebanon’s sovereignty, political independence
and territorial integrity was the first and foremost of those benchmarks.
Council resolutions 425 (1978), 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006) must be fully
implemented. It was imperative for the Lebanese Government to take effective
and immediate control of the Lebanese territory in its entirety, through the
withdrawal of the Israeli military forces and the deployment of the Lebanese
Army. It was also imperative to proceed with the delineation of the
international borders, including the Shebaa Farms. Israel’s legitimate
security concerns also needed to be properly addressed. While the right
to self-defence must be preserved, Israel must respect its obligations under
international law, including international humanitarian law.
The resolution was a first, but important, step towards a lasting and sustainable
peace, she said. It must be ensured that the text be fully implemented.
Now that the end of hostilities was in sight, her country, together
with the rest of the international community, stood ready to help in the enormous
efforts needed to reconstruct a shattered Lebanon and help with the immediate
return of refugees. She called upon the parties to set aside their fears
and disappointments and, difficult as it might be, take the necessary commitment
and effort to overcome the current crisis and build a better future for their
people.
At the same time, he said, no one should forget the plight of the Palestinian
people. As long as the Palestinian issue remained unresolved, there
would be no peace in the region. The necessary conditions must be created
for a genuine relaunching of a peace process, aimed at the achievement of
a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East, based on all relevant
Council resolutions, the Madrid terms of reference and the principle of “land
for peace”.
MARGARET BECKETT, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
of the United Kingdom, said that the objectives of the resolution just adopted
had been clear: to bring about a full cessation of hostilities; to create
a space for urgent humanitarian efforts; and to begin a process leading to
a permanent ceasefire and a durable peace.
She said that last point was crucial and spoke to why it had taken long and
intensive deliberations to arrive at this evening’s decision. The
Council had needed to hammer out a text that looked to the long term and took
into account the views of all concerned, particularly the Governments of both
Israel and Lebanon. It had taken some time, but the United Kingdom believed
it was the right decision. The text was a comprehensive one that required
actions on both sides. With its adoption, there could be no going back
to the way things had been.
The immediate concern was to alleviate the humanitarian situation on the ground,
she said, adding that, hopefully, the immediate cessation of hostilities would
allow space for United Nations and other humanitarian organizations to deploy
into the region as soon as possible. The United Kingdom had a humanitarian
team already on the ground, and it had increased its aid package to some £6.5
million.
She said that the heart of the agreement was Israeli Security and Lebanese
sovereignty. There could not be one without the other; for too long,
Lebanon had suffered from conflict and instability. The international
community must also acknowledge that the people of Israel could no longer
live under the shadow of indiscriminate rocket attacks and other violence.
Indeed, after today, Hizbollah faced an historic choice, whether to
continue on a path of violence and destruction or to pursue a path of political
dialogue, which was itself the path to peace. And, Hizbollah’s
backers, namely Syria and Iran, must also look at their positions: would
they choose to work with, or against, those who sought peace and stability
in the Middle East. Here, she could not help but mention the recent
comments of the President of Iran. Such comments were wholly unacceptable
in themselves, and had the capacity to promote further violence.
The international community must also not lose sight of the situation in Gaza,
where the humanitarian conditions of the Palestinian people was a cause for
continued concern, she said. Real peace throughout the Middle East could
only come on the basis of a lasting and comprehensive settlement. The
international community’s priority must be to promote the Quartet-backed
“Road Map”. Tony Blair had today announced that he would visit
the region shortly, namely the Occupied Palestinian Territory and Lebanon.
The United Kingdom would do all it could to help bring about a lasting
peace in Lebanon and the wider Middle East.
PER STIG MØLLER, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Denmark, said that
several parties were responsible for the conflict. “Hizbollah was
the main cause. We have also called on Syria and Iran to act responsibly,
and we have called on Israel to show utmost restraint, avoid disproportionate
action and warned against destroying Lebanon in their fight against Hizbollah”,
he added.
He said that the world must not return to the status quo ante; as long as
armed forces outside the control of the Government operated in and around
Lebanon, instability would prevail. Denmark stood firmly behind Prime
Minister Siniora of Lebanon to meet the challenge of safeguarding a stable
and democratic future for that country, and to avoid strengthening extremism
in the region. Indeed, one of the main objectives of the resolution
was to ensure the sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity and political
independence of Lebanon in line with resolution 1559 (2004).
His country welcomed the decision to deploy 15,000 Lebanese troops in southern
Lebanon and supported the enhancement of UNIFIL, he said. It was also
imperative that United Nations humanitarian organizations and other relief
organizations be guaranteed safety and unhindered access. Denmark had
contributed to those efforts and the United Nation’s humanitarian appeal,
and it stood ready to extend further assistance.
LIU ZHENMIN ( China) said his country had repeatedly called on all parties
in the conflict to practice utmost restraint since 12 July -- the day the
conflict broke out -- and condemned excessive use of force and attacks against
civilians, civilian facilities and United Nations personnel. In the
course of consultations on the present resolution, China had repeatedly emphasized
that the text reflect the concerns of all parties, especially those of Lebanon
and Arab countries. He believed the resolution on the table embodied
important elements, having absorbed the seven-point proposal of the Lebanese
Government, such as calling for the full cessation of hostilities and upon
the Lebanese Government to deploy its Armed Forces, together with UNIFIL,
as the Israeli Army withdrew behind the Blue Line.
He said that the resolution also laid out detailed provisions for UNIFIL’s
new mandate, which would contribute to forming a good foundation for future
efforts to achieve long-term political solutions to the Lebanon-Israel issue.
He had voted in favour of the resolution, having taken note that Lebanon,
Israel and Arab countries hold no objections to it.
Nevertheless, the text was the first step. Concerned parties were faced
with more arduous tasks, such as reaching consensus on a comprehensive, lasting
and fair framework for the political settlement of the conflict. At
the same time, the international community should intensify their humanitarian
relief efforts, while not forgetting the ongoing suffering of the Palestinian
people. Hopefully, the Middle East peace process would be revitalized,
through joint efforts of Israel and Arab countries, on the basis of United
Nations resolutions and the principle of “land for peace”.
PETER BURIAN ( Slovakia) said that, as a co-sponsor of the resolution, he
supported its adoption. The text provided an important basis for the
cessation of hostilities and the start of a comprehensive settlement of the
Lebanese crisis. It was also a first step in fully and urgently addressing
the causes that had led to the current situation.
He said that there was no military solution to the Lebanese crisis or to the
Middle East conflict in general. A lasting solution could only be reached
through peaceful negotiations and full implementation of all relevant Security
Council resolutions. The territorial integrity, sovereignty and political
independence of Lebanon could best be achieved by implementation of the resolutions
calling for the Government to assume full control over all its territory.
That meant taking the appropriate measures against illegal movements of arms
and people through Lebanon’s borders and illegal attacks against the
territory of neighbouring States. The international community should
assist the Lebanese Government to achieve that goal. The strength and
mandate of UNIFIL should be expeditiously enhanced to cope with the tasks.
The international community should also immediately address the extremely
difficult humanitarian situation of the thousands of refugees and internally
displaced persons and assist their return home.
The resolution could not substitute for agreement by parties on the basic
principles for a long-term and lasting solution, he said. All parties
should extend their full cooperation in achieving a sustainable and lasting
solution to the Lebanese crisis.
VITALY I. CHURKIN ( Russian Federation) said that, for almost a whole month,
hundreds of thousands of people in the region had been subject to peril.
During the same time, much damage had been done to Lebanese infrastructure
and the personnel of UNIFIL, too, faced casualties, inflicting wounds to both
regional and international memory that would require a long time to heal.
Throughout the crisis, the Russian Federation had always insisted on immediate
ceasefire.
He then remarked on the familiarity of the chain of events that struck the
Middle East, as well as the familiar lack of a comprehensive settlement following
those events. Until decisive action was taken to resolve the region’s
fundamental problems, the world would doubtlessly face a similar outbreak
of hostilities in the future. To avoid such a recurrence, all aspects
of the situation must be dealt with without exception, and must be done on
the basis of Security Council resolutions.
He said the present resolution had taken an unjustifiably long time to complete,
with Russia doing everything it could to accelerate the process. In
fact, in an attempt to speed up the process, Russia had proposed a draft resolution
for a humanitarian ceasefire in Lebanon. However, in view of the fact
that it was possible to produce the present text, Russia had decided to lend
its wholehearted support to it. This was especially true since the resolution
included Russia’s demand for an immediate cessation of hostilities, and
was able to accommodate both Lebanon’s other interests, as well as Israel’s
security interests.
CEASAR MAYORAL ( Argentina) said his country had voted in favour of the draft
and had stressed the need to bring an immediate end to the violence and an
immediate beginning to broad humanitarian efforts on the ground. Still,
Argentina, which continued to be concerned with the fate of civilians on both
sides, regretted that it had taken the Council a full month to act. He
stressed the need to adhere to the principles of proportionality and differentiation,
and reiterated Argentina’s condemnation of all violent acts committed
against civilians. He hoped that with a cessation of hostilities, the
focus would now quickly shift to alleviating the humanitarian situation on
the ground.
He stressed that this was not the end of the road but the beginning, and that
additional efforts would be needed to ensure peace and stability, starting
with a strong call from the Council for the implementation of all previous
resolutions on the situation in Lebanon and the Middle East. Here, he
stressed the need for the Council to continue to monitor the situation in
the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Indeed, the deepening humanitarian
crisis in Gaza and the wider occupied territories was part of the overall
problem. The related crises fed off of each other. It was Argentina’s
hope, therefore, that, in the coming days, the Council would act to alleviate
the suffering there.
KENZO OSHIMA ( Japan) said the fighting had caused heart-rending bloodshed
and the destruction of infrastructure on both sides. Hostilities were
still ongoing, which meant that the number of casualties continued to increase
every day. Such fighting only threatened the region’s stability.
He said the package of solutions -- a baby of political compromise, born of
arduous exchange -- could not satisfy all parties 100 per cent. Nevertheless,
it provided a viable framework for the avoidance of further destruction, long
called for by the international community. But a sustainable solution
to the conflicts besetting the region could only be reached if it was backed-up
by political will and support from the international community. Indeed,
a complete implementation of the points in the resolution was vital, and the
Governments of Lebanon and Israel were called on to realize an immediate ceasefire,
and to exercise the utmost restraint, as they carried out their efforts to
restore calm and stability in the region.
He said Japan was concerned by the dire humanitarian situation, particularly
in Lebanon. There was a need to address the problem of internally displaced
people and of refugees, as well as the rehabilitation of the country at the
earliest possible time. He paid tribute to all humanitarian relief workers,
UNIFIL observers and troops for their perseverance. While all due attention
and speed was required to deal with the issue of Lebanon, members of the Council
must not forget the problem of Palestine and the increasingly dire plight
of the Palestinian people.
TUVAKO N. MANONGI (United Republic of Tanzania) said stopping further humanitarian
casualties had always been an objective. Indeed, it was still the Council’s
primary objective tonight, in addition to a second objective: to achieve
a political solution. Meanwhile, any expectation that military action
would bring about a political solution could only engender grave humanitarian
consequences and render it harder to promote a political solution.
He said he was relieved that it had been possible to complete the draft of
the present resolution, and subsequently to vote for it, since it had always
been Tanzania’s view that the crisis need not escalate further.
The Government of Lebanon was to be commended for its seven-point plan, augmented
by an offer to deploy 15,000 troops in southern Lebanon to control its territory
in collaboration with UNIFIL. The Government of Israel was also to be
commended for giving the proposal due consideration.
For its part, the international community had an important supportive role
in the resolution’s implementation, he said, praising potential troop-contributing
countries for their actions so far and urging them to act with urgency.
He also appealed for assistance towards the return and resettlement of displaced
persons, and the reconstruction of Lebanon.
Mr. PEREYRA ( Peru) said he hoped that the resolution just adopted would mark
the beginning of the end of the violence, which had wreaked so much havoc
on both sides. The cessation of hostilities should also allow the humanitarian
relief effort to begin without delay. He called for the speedy strengthening
of UNIFIL, so that the Lebanese Government could deploy its authority throughout
the country.
NANA AFUKO-ADDO, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ghana, whose delegation holds
the Security Council presidency for the month, said it was an honour to preside
over a meeting at which the Council had adopted a text on Lebanon, which the
world had been awaiting. The anxiety that had gripped the world since
the outbreak of the conflict and led some to accuse the Council of inaction
could now be laid to rest. He hoped that today would mark a true beginning,
not only for the people of Lebanon and Israel, but for the entire region.
He welcomed the presence of the many high political officials that had been
present for the vote and stressed that their participation underscored the
fact that no other body could surpass the Security Council in the force of
its moral authority and sheer diplomatic clout, when it acted in unity, and
remained faithful to its responsibilities. “We expect nothing less
when we come to grapple with the fundamental question of a comprehensive,
just and lasting solution to the long-standing Middle East question”,
he said. Clearly, the solution was within the Council’s grasp.
Now, all delegations must resolve to work together in a spirit of compromise,
to bring a speedy end to the pain and suffering of the peoples of that troubled
region.
He echoed the wish of others that the adoption of the resolution would lead
to an immediate cessation of hostilities between Israel and Lebanon, and begin
to bring prompt relief to the 1 million displaced people in dire need of humanitarian
assistance. The passage of the resolution should also be seen as an
important step in the search for a comprehensive peace in the Middle East.
Towards that goal, Ghana intended to work closely with the Council members
to implement the two-State solution. Indeed, in that quest, the international
community, and especially the Council, should leave no stone unturned.
TAREK MITRI, Minister of Culture and Special Envoy of the Government of Lebanon,
said that, while Israel claimed the war was against Hizbollah and not Lebanon,
their strategy of terror was, in fact, inflicted on all Lebanese. The
“indiscriminate murder” of more than 1,100 Lebanese civilians, a
third of them children; the massacres and “cleansing” of villages;
the destruction of infrastructure and economy was “nothing short of criminal”.
In addition, one quarter of the population had been displaced, with many desperately
low of fuel, food and medical supplies. Homes, hospitals, factories
and warehouses had been demolished.
He said the direct cause of the thousands of deaths and injuries were the
“obscenely disproportionate and unjustifiable” Israeli retaliation.
There had been many cases documented by human rights organizations revealing
a systematic failure by the Israeli army to distinguish between combatants
and civilians. In many cases, the timing and intensity of the attack,
the absence of a military target and strikes on rescuers suggested that Israel’s
forces deliberately targeted civilians. Even today, a convoy of evacuated
civilians escorted by the Red Cross had been targeted, killing 4 and injuring
16.
He added that Lebanon had offered a seven-point plan developed through a process
of national consensus that received unanimous approval of the Lebanese Council
of Ministers, and political and religious leaders, and received support from
the Arab League, the Organization of Islamic Conferences and the Non-Aligned
Movement. But, a ceasefire that retained for one side the right “not
to cease firing” was not a ceasefire, and for that, Lebanon had urgently
requested a ceasefire that had the possibility of being implemented, so that
all hostilities should immediately cease, and do so for good.
The persistent invasions of Lebanon demonstrated Israel’s continuing
belief that military actions would remedy the causes of the region’s
crises, he continued. A political resolution rooted in international
law was needed, rather than a solution based on the use of force, and the
seven-point plan was an example of such a solution. Indeed, the people
and Government of Lebanon were deeply appreciative of the international effort
to bring to an immediate end the “ravaging of Lebanon”. The
Council’s acknowledgement of the Shebaa Farms problem was also appreciated
and, hopefully, steps would be taken by both the Council and the Secretary-General
to resolve the issue, thereby removing of the conflict’s underlying causes.
Further, he said, the Lebanese were not confident in the Israeli distinction
between “defensive” and “offensive”. The end of
military operations should be unqualified, and the lifting of the blockade
should be immediate upon cessation of hostilities so that humanitarian aid
was no longer prevented from reaching people in need. As for the deployment
of Lebanese Armed Forces in southern Lebanon as the sole military force in
the area, to be assisted by the United Nations forces, he called for troop-contributing
countries to act swiftly on the strengthening and enhancement of UNIFIL.
He said Israel would realize that the peoples of the Middle East could not
be cowed into submission. The 2002 Arab Summit in Beirut had called
for a just, comprehensive and lasting peace based on the principle of land
for peace, which was the way forward. However, a political solution
could not be implemented as long as Israel continued to occupy Arab land in
Lebanon, Gaza, the West Bank and the Syrian Golan Heights. For the Lebanese
people and, indeed, the world at large, the stakes could not be higher, and
the Lebanese Council of Ministers would convene urgently tomorrow to consider
the resolution.
DAN GILLERMAN ( Israel) said that, but for the alertness of the British security
authorities, the world could have been sitting in the aftermath of a terrorist
atrocity greater even than “9/11”. “The world would have
mourned, but in the streets of Tehran, Damascus, Gaza and parts of Lebanon,
there would be rejoicing, just as there was on 9/11”, he said, adding
that though the plan was foiled, the threat -- and genocidal ideology that
inspired it -- remained. For the past month, Israel had been confronting
that same fanatical terrorism, which was quick to cross continents.
Hostage-taking, suicide bombers and hijackings knew no boundaries, as many
States around the table, among them Argentina, United Kingdom, Greece, Japan,
Qatar, Russian Federation and the United States, knew only too well.
He said that whether the world would succeed in defeating that threat depended
on the resolve demonstrated today. The way to avoid the crisis between
Israel and Lebanon had been clear: implementation of the unconditional
obligations set out in resolutions 1559 and 1680, which had set out issues
for resolutions between Syria and Lebanon. The clear path forward was
by disarming and disbanding Hizbollah and other militias, as well as by Lebanon’s
exercise of authority over all its territory. But the will to implement
such actions had been lacking, leading the people of Israel and Lebanon to
pay a heavy price.
He said the failure to ensure the implementation of those resolutions meant
Israel had no choice but to do what Lebanon had failed to. As a result,
Hizbollah’s lethal capability had been dealt a major blow; bases had
been dismantled; and stockpiles of Iranian missiles had been destroyed, showing
terrorists and their sponsors that campaigns of terrorism would meet with
the forceful response they deserved. However, Israel was ready to respond
to calls from the Council, and to give the Lebanese Government another chance
to create a new reality on the ground.
He went on to say that the resolution adopted today would establish a binding
arms embargo requiring all States to prevent the supply of arms and weapons
to militias and terrorists in Lebanon. It provided for a radically different
international force with a mandate and capability to use all necessary means
to create a new situation in Lebanon, in which the borders would be secure.
Hizbollah would not rearm, and Lebanese armed forces would deploy throughout
Lebanese territory including along the Blue Line. However, the resolution
would do nothing unless the tools provided in it were used with resolve and
decisiveness.
The stakes for the region were high, he said, as the last few weeks had given
a “chilling glimpse” at what the region could be like if Iran were
to succeed in achieving its goal of adding weapons of mass destruction to
its arsenal. But the resolutions adopted by the Council today and last
week had sent Iran a clear message: it could not develop weapons to
threaten the region on its own territory, and it could not fight proxy wars
on the territory of others.
He said there was no quarrel with the Lebanese people, and that Israel wished
to live next to a peaceful Lebanon that was able to exercise its independence
and sovereign responsibility like any other State. The people of Lebanon
had a choice: to develop agriculture and make deserts bloom, or to turn
towns into bases of terror and barren lands. They had a choice between
working to advance medicine to bring health to body and limb, or to manufacture
weapons of destruction for tearing limb from limb. It was a choice between
those who invested in industry and trade, and those whose only export was
terror.
* *** *