The Trump administration wants to end the UN peacekeeping in Lebanon. Europe is pushing back
At issue is the peacekeeping operation known as UNIFIL, whose mandate expires at the end of August and will need to be renewed by the U.N. Security Council to continue. It was created to oversee the withdrawal of Israeli troops from southern Lebanon after Israel's 1978 invasion, and its mission was expanded following the monthlong 2006 war between Israel and the militant group Hezbollah.
The multinational force has played a significant role in monitoring the security situation in southern Lebanon for decades, including during the Israel-Hezbollah war last year, but has drawn criticism from both sides and numerous U.S. lawmakers, some of whom now hold prominent roles in President Donald Trump's administration or wield new influence with the White House.
Trump administration political appointees came into office this year with the aim of shutting down UNIFIL as soon as possible. They regard the operation as an ineffectual waste of money that is merely delaying the goal of eliminating Hezbollah's influence and restoring full security control to the Lebanese Armed Forces that the government says it is not yet capable of doing.
After securing major cuts in U.S. funding to the peacekeeping force, Secretary of State Marco Rubio signed off early last week on a plan that would wind down and end UNIFIL in the next six months, according to Trump administration officials and congressional aides familiar with the discussions.
It's another step as the Trump administration drastically pares back its foreign affairs priorities and budget, including expressing skepticism of international alliances and cutting funding to U.N. agencies and missions. The transatlantic divide also has been apparent on issues ranging from Israel's war against Hamas in Gaza and the Russia-Ukraine conflict to trade, technology and free speech issues.
Europeans push back against a quick end to UN peacekeeping in Lebanon
Israel has for years sought an end to UNIFIL's mandate, and renewal votes have often come after weeks of political wrangling. Now, the stakes are particularly high after last year's war and more vigorous opposition in Washington.
European nations, notably France and Italy, have objected to winding down UNIFIL. With the support of Tom Barrack, U.S. ambassador to Turkey and envoy to Lebanon, they successfully lobbied Rubio and others to support a one-year extension of the peacekeeping mandate followed by a time-certain wind-down period of six months, according to the administration officials and congressional aides, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private diplomatic negotiations.
Israel also reluctantly agreed to an extension, they said.
The European argument was that prematurely ending UNIFIL before the Lebanese army is able to fully secure the border area would create a vacuum that Hezbollah could easily exploit.
The French noted that when a U.N. peacekeeping mission in Mali was terminated before government troops were ready to deal with security threats, Islamic extremists moved in.
With the U.S. easing off, the issue ahead of the U.N. vote expected at the end of August now appears to be resistance by France and others to setting a firm deadline for the operation to end after the one-year extension, according to the officials and congressional aides.
French officials did not respond to requests for comment.
The final French draft resolution, obtained by The Associated Press, does not include a date for UNIFIL's withdrawal, which U.S. officials say is required for their support. Instead, it would extend the peacekeeping mission for one year and indicates the U.N. Security Council's 'intention to work on a withdrawal.'
But even if the mandate is renewed, the peacekeeping mission might be scaled down for financial reasons, with the U.N. system likely facing drastic budget cuts, said a U.N. official, who was not authorized to comment to the media and spoke on condition of anonymity.
One of the U.S. officials said an option being considered was reducing UNIFIL's numbers while boosting its technological means to monitor the situation on the ground.
The peacekeeping force has faced criticism
There are about 10,000 peacekeepers in southern Lebanon, while the Lebanese army has around 6,000 soldiers, a number that is supposed to increase to 10,000.
Hezbollah supporters in Lebanon have frequently accused the U.N. mission of collusion with Israel and sometimes attacked peacekeepers on patrol. Israel, meanwhile, has accused the peacekeepers of turning a blind eye to Hezbollah's military activities in southern Lebanon and lobbied for its mandate to end.
Sarit Zehavi, a former Israeli military intelligence analyst and founder of the Israeli think tank Alma Research and Education Center, said UNIFIL has played a 'damaging role with regard to the mission of disarming Hezbollah in south Lebanon.'
She pointed to the discovery of Hezbollah tunnels and weapons caches close to UNIFIL facilities during and after last year's Israel-Hezbollah war, when much of the militant group's senior leadership was killed and much of its arsenal destroyed. Hezbollah is now under increasing pressure to give up the rest of its weapons.
U.N. spokesman Stephane Dujarric said UNIFIL continues to discover unauthorized weapons, including rocket launchers, mortar rounds and bomb fuses, this week, which it reported to the Lebanese army.
Under the U.S.- and France-brokered ceasefire, Israel and Hezbollah were to withdraw from southern Lebanon, with the Lebanese army taking control in conjunction with UNIFIL. Israel has continued to occupy five strategic points on the Lebanese side and carry out near-daily airstrikes that it says aim to stop Hezbollah from regrouping.
Lebanon supports keeping UN peacekeepers
Lebanese officials have called for UNIFIL to remain, saying the country's cash-strapped and overstretched army is not yet able to patrol the full area on its own until it.
Retired Lebanese Army Gen. Khalil Helou said that if UNIFIL's mandate were to abruptly end, soldiers would need to be pulled away from the porous border with Syria, where smuggling is rife, or from other areas inside of Lebanon — 'and this could have consequences for the stability' of the country.
UNIFIL 'is maybe not fulfilling 100% what the Western powers or Israel desire. But for Lebanon, their presence is important,' he said.
The United Nations also calls the peacekeepers critical to regional stability, Dujarric said.
UNIFIL spokesperson Andrea Tenenti said deciding on the renewal of the mandate is the prerogative of the U.N. Security Council.
'We are here to assist the parties in implementation of the mission's mandate and we're waiting for the final decision,' he said.
___
Associated Press writer Edith M. Lederer at the United Nations contributed to this report.
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
a few seconds ago
- CBS News
Putin agreed to let U.S., Europe offer NATO-style protections for Ukraine, Trump envoy says
Washington — Russia's Vladimir Putin agreed at his summit with President Trump to allow the U.S. and its European allies to offer Ukraine a security guarantee resembling NATO's collective defense mandate as part of an eventual deal to end the 3 1/2-year war in Ukraine, special U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff said Sunday. "We were able to win the following concession: That the United States could offer Article 5-like protection, which is one of the real reasons why Ukraine wants to be in NATO," he told CNN's "State of the Union." He added that it "was the first time we had ever heard the Russians agree to that" and called them "game-changing." Article 5, at the heart of the 32-member military alliance, states that an armed attack against one or more of the members shall be considered an attack against all members. Witkoff, who had joined Secretary of State Marco Rubio for the talks Friday at a military base in Alaska, offered few details on how such an agreement would work. But it appeared to be a major shift for Putin and could serve as a workaround to his long-standing objection to Ukraine's potential NATO membership. Outlining some of the details about the private discussions, Witkoff also said Russia had agreed to enact a law that it would not "go after any other European countries and violate their sovereignty. And there was plenty more." European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, speaking at a news conference in Brussels with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, applauded the move. "We welcome President Trump's willingness to contribute to Article 5-like security guarantees for Ukraine and the 'Coalition of the willing' — including the European Union — is ready to do its share," she said. Zelenskyy thanked the United States for recent signals that Washington was willing to support such guarantees, but said much was unclear. "It is important that America agrees to work with Europe to provide security guarantees for Ukraine," he said, "But there are no details how it will work, and what America's role will be, Europe's role will be and what the EU can do, and this is our main task, we need security to work in practice like Article 5 of NATO, and we consider EU accession to be part of the security guarantees." Witkoff defended Mr. Trump's decision to abandon his push that Russian agree to an immediate ceasefire, which the president had set as a benchmark going into the meeting. Witkoff said the Republican president had pivoted toward a peace deal because so much progress was made. "We covered almost all the other issues necessary for a peace deal," Witkoff said, without elaborating. "We began to see some moderation in the way they're thinking about getting to a final peace deal." Rubio said on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan" that he did not believe imposing new U.S. sanctions on Russia would force Putin to accept a ceasefire. "If he did this now, the moment the president puts those additional sanctions, that's the end of the talks," Rubio said. "We want to wind up with a peace deal that ends this war so Ukraine can go on with the rest of their lives and rebuild their country and be assured that this is never going to happen again. That's the goal here." Rubio said that Kyiv "is going to have to accept things, but they're going to have to get things too." "For example, Ukraine is a sovereign country. They have a right, like every sovereign country does in the world, to enter into security alliances with other countries to prevent an invasion in the future, to prevent threats to their national security," Rubio said. "That's not an unreasonable request. That's something needs to be worked on." Zelenskyy and Europeans leaders, who heard from Mr. Trump after the summit, are scheduled to meet with him at the White House on Monday. "I'm not saying we're on the verge of a peace deal, but I am saying that we saw movement, enough movement to justify a follow up meeting with Zelenskyy and the Europeans, enough movement for us to dedicate even more time to this," Rubio said.
Forbes
a few seconds ago
- Forbes
The U.S. Message To Australia And Japan
The United States is, not surprisingly, concerned about alliance burden-sharing and security commitments, recently focusing on Australia and Japan and their respective views toward Taiwan. U.S. Undersecretary of Defense Elbridge Colby has raised this issue in conversations with Australian and Japanese leadership, asking these two U.S. allies to clarify their security commitments to Taiwan in the event of a mainland Chinese attack. The U.S. itself has long maintained a posture of 'strategic ambiguity,' deliberately avoiding specifics about its potential response to such a scenario. Colby's initiative aimed to signal regional unity in the U.S. effort to preserve the status quo between Taiwan and the mainland. It also carried a practical appeal: encouraging U.S. allies to strengthen their defense capabilities. Burden-sharing remains a perennial challenge in alliances, driven by the natural temptation for partners to save on defense expenditures and, relatively speaking, benefit from the U.S. defense budget. Partners tend to underinvest in their own defense, relying on the U.S. security umbrella. Here lies the paradox: neither Japan nor Australia can independently defend Taiwan. Only the United States possesses the military capacity—and therefore the credibility—to deter the People's Republic of China. Only the U.S. can impose long-term costs on China. Whether Australia or Japan increases or decreases its defense spending, the sole indispensable component of deterrence remains U.S. credibility. Japan knows this. Australia knows this. The U.S. knows this. Most importantly, China knows this. So why would Japan or Australia seek to strengthen their security commitments to Taiwan when doing so offers no meaningful advantage to Taiwan but risks provoking China? While Colby's outreach stirred debate in both countries, officials reiterated their positions of not formalizing any commitment to a hypothetical conflict. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese stated that Australia would not commit troops in advance to any conflict. That ambiguity reflects a desire to maintain strategic flexibility and avoid premature entanglement in a potential war. This conversation unfolds at a moment when the Trump administration is challenging or reshaping long-held positions and procedures in the Asia-Pacific and beyond. As Trump imposes higher tariffs on both Australia and Japan, the U.S. signals a shift away from its traditional role in alliance leadership and regional problem-solving—making itself a less attractive partner by reducing predictability and increasing the cost of engagement. Much of what the U.S. is attempting in its trade relationship with Australia is viewed as unnecessary, counterproductive, or even in bad faith. The U.S. has a Free Trade Agreement with Australia that eliminates tariffs on nearly all bilateral trade. In fact, the U.S. currently enjoys a trade surplus with Australia—one of Trump's stated trade goals. Rather than leading with a call for increased commitment to Taiwan, the U.S. could have pursued a less controversial approach: encouraging Japan and Australia to expand joint military exercises, enhance maritime surveillance, or simply boost defense spending without direct reference to China. By centering its request on Taiwan, the U.S. chose the approach least likely to elicit a positive response from its allies. The Trump administration's outreach to Japan and Australia appears to have resulted in diminished confidence in the U.S. and reduced credibility regarding Taiwan. The paradox is that the U.S. may still see incremental increases in both countries' defense budgets in the coming years—but driven by concern about the U.S., not concern about China.
Fox News
a few seconds ago
- Fox News
Trump envoy says Putin made 'robust' concessions during Alaska meeting talks on Ukraine
U.S. Special Envoy for Peace Missions Steve Witkoff claims Russian President Vladimir Putin made "robust" steps toward peace during his meeting with President Donald Trump last week. Witkoff made the statement during an appearance on "Fox News Sunday" with host Shannon Bream. The official was in the room for the Alaska meeting and has met previously with Putin several times. "We agreed on much more robust security guarantees," Witkoff said. "The Russians agreed on enshrining legislatively language that they would attest to not attempting to take any more land from Ukraine after a peace deal, where they would attest to not violating any European borders." Witkoff also said Trump spoke with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and European leaders directly after the meeting. He said the meeting was "absolutely acknowledged as a win." Bream pressed Witkoff to explain why Trump did not push Putin for a ceasefire agreement during the meeting as well. Trump had previously said a ceasefire was a top priority and claimed Putin would face consequences if he didn't agree to one. "The president has always talked about a ceasefire, until he made a lot of different wins in this meeting and began to realize that we could be talking about a peace deal. The ultimate deal here is a peace deal, and we were talking about much more robust security guarantees than anyone ever imagined," he said. In a statement after the call with Trump, major European leaders did not address whether they preferred a peace deal over a ceasefire. The leaders said they "welcomed President Trump's efforts to stop the killing in Ukraine, end Russia's war of aggression, and achieve just and lasting peace." Putin described his talks with Trump in Alaska as "very frank." "We, of course, respect the position of the American administration, which sees the need for a speedy end to military actions," Putin said at the follow-up meeting at the Kremlin, adding that "we would like to move to resolving all issues by peaceful means."
