|
Report of the Secretary General
prepared pursuant to United Nations
Security Council Resolution 1559
I. Introduction
1.
The present report is submitted
pursuant to Resolution 1559 adopted
on Sept. 2, 2004, by the Security
Council. In paragraph 7 of the
resolution, the council requested
that I report within 30 days on the
implementation by the parties of
this resolution.
II.
Background
2.
From 1975 to 1990, Lebanon suffered
a tragic and bloody civil war that
resulted in the deaths of an
estimated 120,000 people. Much of
the fighting in that war was carried
out by militias that corresponded to
Lebanon's confessional communities.
Various Palestinian militant groups
also took part in the violence. Over
the years, at various times, France,
Italy, Libya, the Yemen Arab
Republic, Saudi Arabia, Sudan,
Syria, the United Arab Emirates, the
United Kingdom and the United States
deployed forces in Lebanon at the
request of its government to bring
the fighting to an end and to
stabilize the situation. Israel
carried out frequent military
operations during this period,
including shellings, air attacks,
two large-scale incursions into
Lebanon and an extended occupation
of the southern part of the country.
3.
The Security Council has been
engaged in the issue since 1978 and
has adopted 76 resolutions that
called inter alia for an end to
violence, the protection of
civilians, respect for Lebanese
sovereignty, the withdrawal of
Israeli forces from Lebanese
territory and the extension of
Lebanese authority throughout the
country's territory.
4.
Syria first deployed troops in
Lebanon in May 1976, at the request
of Lebanese President Franjieh. In
October 1976, the League of Arab
States established the Arab
Deterrent Force (ADF) to keep the
peace in Lebanon.
In the ADF, Syria was joined by
Libya, the Yemen Arab Republic,
Saudi Arabia, Sudan and the United
Arab Emirates. Syrian forces
constituted the majority of ADF
troops, accounting at initial
deployment for approximately 27,000
of its total strength of 30,000.
5.
After a Palestinian attack in
northern Israel that resulted in the
deaths of over 30 civilians, Israel
carried out a major military
operation in Southern Lebanon in
March 1978. The Security Council
adopted Resolution 425 (1978),
calling on Israel immediately to
cease its military action against
Lebanese territorial integrity and
withdraw forthwith its forces from
all Lebanese territory. Also, in
March 1978, pursuant to resolutions
425 and 426 (1978), the United
Nations Interim Force in Southern
Lebanon (UNIFIL) deployed with three
purposes as set forth in Resolution
425: a) confirming the withdrawal of
Israeli forces; b) restoring
international peace and security;
and c) assisting the government of
Lebanon in ensuring the return of
its effective authority in the area.
UNIFIL's mandate has been regularly
renewed, most recently on July 29,
2004, through Security Council
Resolution 1553.
6.
In June 1982, Israel launched an
invasion of Lebanon, the trigger for
which was an assassination attempt
on the Israeli ambassador to the
United Kingdom. The United States
took the lead in achieving an
agreement in August 1982 for the
evacuation of Palestinian forces
from Beirut and the deployment of a
Multinational Force (MNF) to oversee
the evacuation.
France, Italy and the United States
provided troops to the MNF, and the
evacuation was completed by
September 1982. MNF forces withdrew
from Lebanon later in September.
7.
After the assassination of Lebanese
president-elect Bashir Gemayel in
mid-September 1982, followed by an
Israeli incursion into West Beirut
and the criminal massacre of
Palestinians in the Sabra and
Shatila refugee camps by Phalangist
militias in late September, the MNF
returned to Lebanon. Forces from the
United Kingdom joined the original
three members of the MNF. The
Security Council adopted Resolution
520 on Sept. 17, 1982, which
condemned the Israeli incursion into
Beirut, demanded a return to the
positions occupied by Israel before
Sept. 17 and called for the strict
respect of the sovereignty,
territorial integrity, unity and
political independence of Lebanon
under the sole and exclusive
authority of the government of
Lebanon through the deployment of
the Lebanese Army throughout
Lebanon. In May 1983,
representatives of Israel, Lebanon
and the United States reached an
agreement intended to lead to the
withdrawal of Israeli forces and the
establishment of a "security region"
in Southern Lebanon. On Oct. 23,
1983, 241 United States Marines and
56 French paratroopers were killed
in twin suicide bombings. Against a
backdrop of rising violence, the
Government of Lebanon cancelled its
agreement with Israel in March 1984.
The MNF withdrew in April of that
year.
8.
On Oct. 22, 1989, as a result of
efforts by the League of Arab
States, members of the Lebanese
Chamber of Deputies, meeting in
Taif, Saudi Arabia, agreed to the
Taif Agreement. The agreement called
for national reconciliation and for
"spreading the sovereignty of the
State of Lebanon over all Lebanese
territory" through a one year plan
that included the "disbanding of all
Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias."
The militias' weapons were to "be
delivered to the state of Lebanon
within a period of six months." In
the agreement, Lebanon thanked Syria
for the assistance provided by its
forces to enable the Lebanese
government to extend its authority
throughout Lebanon "within a set
period of no more than two years."
At the end of that period, the two
governments were to decide on the
redeployment of the Syrian forces in
the region of the Bekaa as far as
the line Hammama-Mdairej-Ain Dara
and, in case of need, at other
points to be determined by a joint
Lebanese-Syrian military committee.
The two governments were also to
conclude an agreement to "determine
the strength and duration of the
presence of Syrian forces in those
areas and to define these forces'
relationship with the Lebanese State
authorities where the forces are
present." The Syria-Lebanon Treaty
of Cooperation and Brotherhood of
May 1991 reiterated this provision.
9.
Over the years, the Security Council
maintained its commitment to
Lebanon's territorial integrity,
sovereignty and independence. The
secretariat worked to persuade
Israel to withdraw from southern
Lebanon.
In April 2000, I received formal
notification from the government of
Israel that it would withdraw its
forces from Lebanon by July 2000. On
May 25, 2000, the government of
Israel notified me that Israel had
redeployed its forces in compliance
with Security Council resolutions
425 and 426. On June, 16, I reported
to the Security Council that Israel
had withdrawn its forces in
accordance with resolutions 425 and
426 and had met the requirements set
out in my May 22 report to the
Security Council. I informed the
council that Lebanon had started to
re-establish its authority in the
area and was considering deploying
its armed forces in southern
Lebanon. On June, 18, the Security
Council welcomed my report and
confirmed my conclusions.
III. Security Council
Resolution
1559 (2004)
10.
On Sept. 2, 2004, the Security
Council adopted Resolution 1559
which reiterated the council's
support for the territorial
integrity, sovereignty and political
independence of Lebanon. It called
upon all parties concerned to
cooperate fully and urgently with
the council for the full
implementation of this and other
relevant Security Council
resolutions concerning the
restoration of the territorial
integrity, full sovereignty and
political independence of Lebanon.
In addition, resolution 1559:
a. Called upon all remaining
foreign forces to withdraw from
Lebanon;
b. Called for the disbanding
and disarmament of all Lebanese and
non-Lebanese militias;
c. Supported the extension of
the control of the government of
Lebanon over all Lebanese territory;
d. Declared its support for a
free and fair electoral process in
Lebanon's then upcoming presidential
election conducted according to
Lebanese constitutional rules
devised without foreign interference
or influence.
The Security Council also reaffirmed
its call for the strict respect of
the sovereignty, territorial
integrity, unity, and political
independence of Lebanon under the
sole and exclusive authority of the
government of Lebanon throughout
Lebanon.
11.
The governments of Lebanon and Syria
submitted to the president of the
Security Council and to me letters
(A/58/879 -S/2004/699 and
A/58/883-S/2004/706, respectively)
regarding the resolution.
a. Foreign forces deployed in
Lebanon
12.
Resolution 1559 calls for the
withdrawal of all remaining foreign
forces from Lebanon. Apart from
UNIFIL, to the best of our ability
to ascertain, the only significant
foreign forces deployed in Lebanon,
as of Sept. 30, 2004, are Syrian.
13.
As I have described, Syria has
maintained forces in Lebanon since
1976. The troops were initially
deployed at the request of Lebanese
President Franjieh. That deployment
was transformed into an Arab
Deterrent Force sanctioned by the
League of Arab States, at the
request of the government of
Lebanon, and was joined by troops
from other Arab countries.
The governments of both Lebanon and
Syria have told me that the Syrian
forces present in Lebanon - which at
one point numbered 40,000, according
to the government of Lebanon - are
there at the invitation of Lebanon
and that their presence is therefore
by mutual agreement. Specifically,
they are said to be deployed
pursuant to the Taif Agreement of
1989 and the Syria-Lebanon Treaty of
Cooperation ratified by both
countries in 1991.
As far as I am aware, the two
governments have not, to date,
concluded the further agreement "to
determine the strength and duration
of the presence of Syrian forces"
that is provided for in both those
instruments.
14.
In addition to the uniformed armed
forces Syria has deployed in
Lebanon, the Syrian government has
informed the United Nations that
there is also a substantial presence
of nonuniformed military
intelligence officials which, it
says, are usual components of
military units. These officials,
together with the uniformed forces,
constitute the full Syrian troop
strength.
15.
The Syrian military and intelligence
apparatus in Lebanon had not been
withdrawn as of Sept. 30, 2004.
However, according to announcements
by the Lebanese and Syrian
governments, Syria has in recent
weeks redeployed approximately 3,000
of its forces formerly deployed
south of Beirut. It has not been
made clear to the United Nations
whether these redeployments are
confined to regular troops or
include nonuniformed military
intelligence, and whether they have
all returned to Syria.
According to the parties, this is
the fifth such redeployment since
the signing of the Taif Accord.
16.
The Syrian government has indicated
to me that a total of about 14,000
Syrian troops remains in Lebanon. It
says that a majority of these forces
are now based near the Syrian border
and that they are not deployed deep
inside Lebanon. The Lebanese and
Syrian governments have told me that
the timing of further withdrawals
would be determined by the security
situation in Lebanon and the region
and through the joint military
committee established pursuant to
the Taif Accord.
17.
The government of Lebanon has
further informed me that the current
fragile security situation in the
region, and its concern regarding
potential risks to Lebanon's
domestic stability, render it
difficult to establish a timetable
for the full withdrawal of Syrian
forces. The government of Lebanon
has stated to me that its ultimate
goal is the complete withdrawal of
all foreign forces from Lebanese
territory. In addition, the two
governments have told me that they
are actively discussing the nature
and extent of the current deployment
of Syrian forces in Lebanon. In this
context, the government of Syria has
informed me that it cannot provide
me with numbers and timetables for
any future withdrawal.
b. Lebanese and non-Lebanese
militias
18.
Security Council Resolution 1559
calls for the disbanding and
disarmament of all Lebanese and
non-Lebanese militias. Since the end
of the civil war, the government of
Lebanon has made great strides in
significantly reducing the number of
militias present in Lebanon.
Nevertheless, as of Sept. 30, 2004,
several armed elements remain in the
South. The government of Lebanon has
told me that it intends that all
irregular armed groups ultimately be
disarmed and disbanded.
19.
The most significant remaining armed
group is Hizbullah. The government
of Lebanon objects to the
characterization of Hizbullah as a
Lebanese militia, and refers to it
as a "national resistance group"
that has as its goal the defense of
Lebanon from Israel and the removal
of Israeli forces from Lebanese
soil, namely the Shebaa farms.
Lebanon maintains that the Shebaa
farms are Lebanese territory, not
Syrian.
However, in my report of June 16,
2000, I confirmed that Israel had
fulfilled as of that date the
requirements of Security Council
resolutions 425 and 426 to "withdraw
forthwith its forces from all
Lebanese territory." The Security
Council endorsed this conclusion in
the statement made on behalf of the
council by its president, on June
18, 2000. Notwithstanding the
government of Lebanon's position
that the Shebaa farms area lies
within Lebanon, the government has
confirmed that it would respect the
Blue Line as identified by the
United Nations. The Security Council
noted this in the statement by the
president on June 18, 2000, and both
in that statement and subsequent
resolutions, has called upon Lebanon
to respect the commitment which it
has given to respect fully that
line. Security Council Resolution
425 (1978) called on Israel to
"withdraw forthwith its forces from
all Lebanese territory" [operative
para. 2 of the resolution].
In the May 22 report, I had "set out
what the United Nations required of
Israel, Lebanon and the Syrian Arab
Republic as well as the
international community in order for
resolutions 425 (1978) and 426
(1978) to be implemented fully"
[quoted from para. 4 of the
secretary general's report of June
16, 2000]. The Security Council
endorsed these requirements in the
statement by its president on May
23, 2000.
In my report of June 16, 2000, on
the implementation of Security
Council resolutions 425 (1978) and
426 (1978), I wrote to "inform the
council that Israel has met the
requirements defined" in my earlier
report of May 22 and "that Israeli
forces have withdrawn from Lebanon
in compliance with Resolution 425
(1978)" [para. 1 of the report; also
para. 40.
In the May 22 report, I had "set out
what the United Nations required of
Israel, Lebanon and the Syrian Arab
Republic as well as the
international community in order for
resolutions 425 (1978) and 426
(1978) to be implemented fully"
[quoted from para. 4 of the 16 June
2000 report].
Taken together, the clear
implication of my report of June 16,
2000, was that Israel's withdrawal
had fully met the provision of
Resolution 425, which called on
Israel to withdraw its forces from
all Lebanese territory. It follows
that Shebaa farms cannot be
considered Lebanese territory.On
June 18, 2000, the Security Council,
through endorsed this conclusion
through the statement by its
president, "made on behalf of the
council," on June 18, 2000, endorsed
this conclusion, stating:
"The Security Council welcomes the
report of the secretary general of
June 16, 2000 (S/2000/590), and
endorses the work done by the United
Nations as mandated by the Security
Council, including the secretary
general's conclusion that as of June
16, 2000, Israel has withdrawn its
forces from Lebanon in accordance
with Resolution 425 (1978) of March
19, 1978, and met the requirements
defined in the secretary general's
report of May 22, 2000 (S/2000/460).
In this regard, the council notes
that Israel and Lebanon have
confirmed to the secretary general,
as referred to in his report of June
16, 2000 (S/2000/590), that
identifying the withdrawal line was
solely the responsibility of the
United Nations and that they will
respect the line as identified." The
Security Council, in Resolution
1310, adopted on July 27, 2000
(2000), recalling "in particular its
endorsement of the work done by the
United Nations as mandated by the
Security Council including the
secretary general's conclusion that
as of June 16, 2000, Israel had
withdrawn its forces from Lebanon in
accordance with Resolution 425
(1978) and met the requirements
defined in the secretary general's
report of May 22, 2000." In
operative para. 5 of the resolution,
the council called "on the parties
to respect that line" (referred to
as the withdrawal line in operative
para. 4 of the resolution).
20.
As of Sept. 30, 2004, United Nations
staff on the ground had not
discerned any change in the status
of Hizbullah since the adoption of
Resolution 1559. In this connection,
the government of Lebanon has
informed me that the fragile
security situation in the region,
the risk to Lebanon's stability and
the lack of a comprehensive regional
peace process would make it
difficult to implement the
resolution immediately and fully.
21.
Regarding Palestinian armed groups,
the government of Lebanon has given
me assurances that Palestinian
militants are not allowed to leave
their refugee camps with weapons.
United Nations personnel in the
region have indicated that the
government of Lebanon has positioned
the Lebanese armed forces outside
the camps, apparently to enforce
this policy. The government has told
me that the security situation in
the camps makes it inadvisable for
its forces to enter the camps to
disarm the militants. The government
of Lebanon expresses particular
concern regarding the presence of a
large Palestinian refugee population
on its territory and Lebanese public
discussion regularly raises fears
that this community might be settled
permanently in Lebanon. The
government insists that a final
Middle East settlement should
contain provision for the
resettlement of these refugees.
c. Extension of Lebanese
Government control over all Lebanese
territory
22.
Security Council Resolution 1559
declares support for the extension
of the control of the government of
Lebanon over all Lebanese territory.
Since the end of the civil war,
Lebanon has deployed some security
forces in the southern part of the
country, in accordance with relevant
Security Council resolutions and the
Taif Accord. However, as of Sept.
30, 2004, the government of Lebanon
had not extended its control over
all of its territory.
23.
Although Lebanon held peaceful
municipal elections in the South in
May 2004, the area around the Blue
Line remains tense. The calm which
followed the withdrawal has too
often been shattered by violence.
The Lebanese Army has not deployed
along the Blue Line. UNIFIL has
reported that there have been
violations from both sides of the
Blue Line; on the Lebanese side,
they have come from Hizbullah and
Palestinian groups.
Hizbullah operations have frequently
violated the Blue Line. It is widely
asserted that Hizbullah operations
are carried out independent of
Lebanese government control or
sanction. I have previously urged
the government of Lebanon to exert
control over the use of force on its
entire territory and to prevent all
attacks from its territory across
the Blue Line.
24.
More than four years after the
Israeli withdrawal from South
Lebanon, movement in the region
remains restricted. Hizbullah has
established checkpoints throughout
Southern Lebanon. Movements of
Lebanese officials, UNIFIL personnel
and diplomats are hindered at times
by armed elements.
25.
The government of Lebanon has stated
to me that it is constrained in its
ability to deploy its forces in
parts of southern Lebanon by the
terms of the Israeli-Lebanese
General Armistice Agreement of March
23, 1949, which set limits on the
numbers and types of military forces
the parties might deploy in the
region of the boundary between the
two countries. According to the
government, it has deployed in the
region the full complement of 1,500
troops permitted to it by that
agreement.
d. Presidential election process
26. Resolution 1559 declares
the Security Council's "support for
a free and fair electoral process in
Lebanon's upcoming presidential
election conducted according to
Lebanese constitutional rules
devised without foreign interference
or influence." Lebanese President
Emile Lahoud's term in office was to
have expired in November 2004.
According to the Lebanese
Constitution, the Chamber of
Deputies is required to meet at
least a month before the expiration
of the president's term to elect a
successor. The Constitution allows
for a single six-year term for the
president, with a possibility of a
return to office only after the
passage of six years.
27.
On Sept. 3, 2004, less than 24 hours
after Resolution 1559 was adopted,
the Chamber of Deputies approved
Constitutional Law 585 by a vote of
96 to 29 with three members not
present, thereby extending President
Lahoud's term by three years. The
law stated, "for a one and
exceptional time, the mandate of the
current president of the republic
will be renewed to three additional
years that should end on Nov. 23,
2007." The government of Lebanon has
informed me that this law was
adopted in accordance with Lebanese
constitutional rules. In 1947 and
1995, the Chamber of Deputies voted
to allow one-time extensions of the
terms of sitting presidents. It was
widely contended in Lebanon, and
asserted by the cosponsors of
Resolution 1559, that the extension
of President Lahoud's term in office
was the result of a direct
intervention by the government of
Syria. Ten members of the Chamber of
Deputies have tabled a motion in the
chamber to abrogate the law
extending President Lahoud's term.
Both the Lebanese and Syrian
governments have denied Syrian
influence on the extension.
e. Sovereignty, territorial
integrity, unity and political
independence of Lebanon
28.
In Resolution 1559, the Security
Council reaffirmed its call for the
strict respect of the sovereignty,
territorial integrity, unity and
political independence of Lebanon
under the sole and exclusive
authority of the government of
Lebanon throughout Lebanon.
29.
It is widely alleged in Lebanon that
the Syrian military presence,
including a substantial component of
non-uniformed intelligence
officials, affords Syria
considerable leverage over Lebanese
domestic affairs. The governments of
Lebanon and Syria have denied to me
that Syria intervenes in Lebanon's
internal affairs.
30.
Despite the closeness of official
ties between Lebanon and Syria, it
has been noted that the countries
have never had formal diplomatic
relations. There is no Lebanese
diplomatic mission in Damascus, nor
is there a Syrian diplomatic mission
in Beirut.
31.
Since October 2000, Israeli aircraft
have regularly violated Lebanese
sovereignty by flying into Lebanese
airspace, at times crossing the Blue
Line. They frequently penetrate deep
into Lebanese territory and generate
sonic booms over populated areas.
The government of Israel claims that
these overflights are carried out
for security reasons. Hizbullah
anti-aircraft fire has fallen across
the Blue Line into Israel. Such fire
has caused Israeli casualties.
32.
I, and my representatives in the
region, have called on the parties
to cease violations of the Blue Line
in either direction and refrain from
escalatory acts, which have caused
casualties on both sides. As we have
stated, one violation does not
justify another.
IV. Observations
33.
Resolution 1559, pursuant to which
this report is drafted, lays
specific requirements on various
parties. As will be apparent from
this report, I cannot certify that
these requirements have been met.
While their objections to the
resolution are well-known, the
governments of Lebanon and Syria
have assured me of their respect for
the Security Council, and that
consequently they will not contest
it. The parties have provided me
with information and given me
certain assurances that are set
forth above. I note these assurances
and await their fulfilment. I have
requested from the parties a
timetable for their full
implementation.
34.
As regards the electoral process, it
has long been my strong belief,
reiterated most recently at the
African Union summit in July of this
year, that governments and leaders
should not hold on to office beyond
prescribed term limits.
35.
Lebanese public opinion appears to
be divided over such issues as the
Syrian military presence in Lebanon,
the constitutional situation as it
relates to presidential elections
and the continued existence of armed
groups not under the direct control
of the government. But many are of
the view that full implementation of
Resolution 1559 would be in the
interest not just of Lebanon, but of
Syria too, and of the region and the
wider international community. It is
time, 14 years after the end of
hostilities and four years after the
Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, for
all parties concerned to set aside
the remaining vestiges of the past.
The withdrawal of foreign forces and
the disbandment and disarmament of
militias would, with finality, end
that sad chapter of Lebanese
history.
36.
As I noted above, the requirements
on the various parties set out in
Resolution 1559 have not been met.
In this connection, I remain ready
to assist, as needed, the parties in
the full implementation of Security
Council Resolution 1559, and, if
required, to keep the Security
Council regularly updated with any
information in this regard.
37.
I continue to look forward to the
ultimate achievement of a just,
lasting and comprehensive peace in
the Middle East.
|
