WASHINGTON – The Bush administration’s effort to assemble an international peacekeeping force for Lebanon has quickly run into several roadblocks, including one especially daunting: Few countries seem willing to commit troops, especially without a cease-fire agreement in place.
The White House has said no U.S. troops would be part of such a force. Britain says it is stretched too thin to take on another deployment. France has called talk of such a force “premature,” while German officials wince at the idea of their troops on Israel’s border.
Such reluctance is complicating the U.S. push to deploy a force that could isolate the Islamic militant group Hezbollah and neutralize its ability to strike Israel from bases in southern Lebanon.
U.N. peacekeepers, first deployed along the border in 1978 and currently numbering about 2,000, have never been considered a combat force, and have been overwhelmed by the current fighting.
Aside from finding troops, other problems are plaguing the potential deployment. The United States, Israel and most European countries want Hezbollah to disarm completely, as required by a U.N. resolution. Hezbollah rejects that idea.
U.S. efforts to pressure Hezbollah have been hampered by the absence of formal diplomatic ties to Iran and only low-grade official channels open with Syria – the radical group’s two main patrons.
“If Hezbollah is not disarmed or rejects a cease-fire agreement, then who’s going to come in? Nobody,” said Robert Hunter, former U.S. ambassador to the NATO who now works in the Washington office of the RAND Corp.
Officials traveling with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who headed for a Lebanon crisis meeting in Rome late Tuesday, said that the force they want to field would not be begin its work until the fighting ebbs enough to allow an unchallenged entry.
“They’re not going to fight their way in,” one senior administration official told reporters. He declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the subject.
U.S. officials signaled that topics of discussion in Rome would include how large an international force should be, what rules it would follow regarding firefights and whether it should operate only in the south of Lebanon or throughout the country, a senior administration official said.
As they search for countries willing to take part, U.S. officials confront a clear dilemma. If they get diplomatic backing for the kind of aggressive force the administration views as essential to achieve a stable peace, fewer countries are likely to volunteer because of the increased risk to their troops.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
