A little more on the politics of the UN Lebanon deployment

The UN resolution (1701) that was passed for the deployment of UN forces in Lebanon very intentionally left open the question of whether those troops would have the responsibility or mandate to secure the Lebanon/Syria border.

The way 1701 was written, the patrolling of that border by UN troops is left solely to the discretion of the Lebanese government.

Now, the Syrians, in an attempt to leverage Beirut, have threatened to seal off the border from its side which would functionally cut off the Lebanese from any overland trade except north through Turkey.

The Israelis have responded by saying that they will not lift the air and sea embargo of Lebanon until UN forces take up positions along that border.

Faced with this choice, the Lebanese government has chosen not to allow UN forces along the Syrian border, saying that "Only the Lebanese army is in charge of controlling the borders with Syria and it is out of the question to deploy the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL.)"

Finally, to add to the questions around the ceasefire, take a look at this quote from Kofi Annan yesterday, "The troops are not going there to disarm Hezbollah. Let's be clear about that."

I find all this interesting because of the games played around this ceasefire resolution in the first place. Remember the US stalled international efforts for weeks in pursuit of a resolution which would create "a sustainable peace."

Does this sound like a "sustainable peace?"

(It should be noted that the US only sought a ceasefire after it became clear that the Israelis wouldn't be able to meet their military goals. That was what the coded "sustainable peace" meant, that peace would only be sustainable after the Israelis had reached their goals.)