Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center
at the Center for Special Studies (C.S.S)

July 25 , 2006

 
 


Disarming Hezbollah and extending the sovereignty and authority of the Lebanese government to south Lebanon , in accordance with Security Council Resolution 1559 (2004) and the Taef Accord (1989)

 

Signs bearing the picture of Syrian president Bashar Assad and reading “No [to Security Council Resolution] 1559” at a pro-Syrian rally in Beirut organized by Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. He used it to support the Taef Accord and oppose Resolution 1559 (Al-Manar TV, March 8, 2005).
 


Overview

 
  • While anti-Hezbollah operations in Lebanon continue, during the past few days international diplomatic action has begun to end the crisis. On July 23, the foreign ministers of Germany and France visited Israel, as did the British Minister for Middle East Affairs and members of US Senate Intelligence Subcommittee American Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice arrived in Israel on July 24, and the Finnish foreign minister, the European Union’s foreign commissioner and the Russian deputy foreign minister are also supposed to arrive.
  • In discussions with international representatives, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni has asserted that all diplomatic activity will be conducted parallel to and not insteadof military action on the ground, and that the diplomatic meetings at this point are not intended to stop that action.
  • Minister Livni made it clear that beyond the unconditional release of the kidnapped soldiers, any political arrangement will entail the full implementation of Security Council Resolution 1559, adopted on September 2, 2004, whose provision concerning the disbanding of the militias, including the disarmament of Hezbollah, has not been implemented to this day.
  • Syria , which kept forces in Lebanon until April 2005, forced the Lebanese militias to disarm in accordance with the Taef Accord, which ended the Lebanese civil war, but left Hezbollah in place as the only armed militia. That has made it possible to continue terrorist attacks against Israel and to prevent the imposing of Lebanese sovereignty on south Lebanon , in complete contradiction of the Taef Accord. Nor was Security Council Resolution 1559 implemented by the Lebanese government because Syria and Iran encouraged Hezbollah not to disarm and not to allow the Lebanese army to deploy in south Lebanon .
  • The documents following are:

    A. The full Security Council Resolution 1559;

    B. The English translation of the Taef Accord;

    C. A comparison between Security Council Resolution 1559 and the 1989 Taef Accord.

 


Appendix A

 

Security Council Resolution 1559

 
 
 


Appendix B

 

The English translation of the Taef Accord1
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


Appendix C

 

A comparison of Security Council Resolution 1559 and the Taef Accord

 

Overview

 
  • A comparison of the main points of the Taef Accord and Security Council Resolution 15592 shows that in principle there are no essential differences between the two concerning the central topics on the international and Lebanese internal political agendas. Nevertheless, as is only natural, the Taef Accord is more detailed than Resolution 1559 and contains issues concerning internal Lebanese affairs not dealt with by Resolution 1559. On the other hand, the Taef Accord is fuzzier about the problematic (for Syria ) issue of removing Syrian forces from Lebanon .

 
 
  • It should be noted that according to both the Taef Accord and SecurityCouncil Resolution 1559, the Syrian army is to withdraw from Lebanon (even if according to the Taef Accord, the withdrawal was to be accomplished in two stages); the militias, both Lebanese (Hezbollah) and non-Lebanese (the Palestinian terrorist organizations), are to be disbanded; the Lebanese government and army are to extend their sovereignty to south Lebanon and ensure security and stability along the Israeli-Lebanese border; both the Taef Accord and Resolution 1559 support Lebanese sovereignty and independence. It should also be noted that the Syrians used the Taef Accord to strengthentheir control over Lebanon by applying it selectively and preventing the implementation of central provisions which contradicted Syrian interests.
 
  • The support given by Nasrallah and the pro-Syrian front to the Taef Accord, whose inconvenient provisions the Syrians ignored, and their opposition to Security Council Resolution 1559, are nothing more than hypocritical political manipulation. Their objective was to demonstrate “nationalism” and internal Lebanese unity in the face of a sweeping demand for the removal of Syrian forces. In reality, Hezbollah has no genuine intention of ever supporting the Taef Accord provisions which it regards as “problematic.” A full – as opposed to selective – implementation of the Taef Accord would mean disarming Hezbollah, making the Lebanese government independent and authoritative, enforcing Lebanese sovereignty over south Lebanon and along the Israeli-Lebanese border (recognized by Security Council Resolution 425), and Nasrallah and pro-Syrian elements in Lebanon have no intention of letting that happen.
 


A comparison of Security Council Resolution 1559 and the Taef Accord

 

No.

Issue

Security Council Resolution 1559 (September 2, 2004)

Taef Accord (October 22, 1989)

1

Lebanese independence and sovereignty

Strongly supports Lebanon ’s territorial integrity, sovereignty, its unity and political independence under the exclusive control of the Lebanese government. The resolution calls for free and fair elections without foreign intervention in Lebanon ’s internal affairs.

The preamble states that Lebanon is sovereign, free and independent, founded on respect for individual and collective liberty.

2

Removal of the Syrian forces

Calls upon all the foreign forces [i.e., the Syrian army and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards] to leave Lebanon .

A. Syrian forces will aid the Lebanese army in enforcing the sovereignty of the Lebanese government within two years at the latest after the ratification of the Accord.

B. At that time [i.e., 1991 at the latest] the Syrians and Lebanese will decide upon the redeployment of Syrian forces in the Beka’a Valley and surrounding area. Syria and Lebanon will sign an agreement determining the extent and length of time Syrian forces will remain in the Beka’a Valley.

3

Disbanding of the Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias

Calls for the complete disbanding and disarmamentof all the Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias [i.e., Hezbollah and the Palestinian terrorist organizations].

States that all the Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias are to be disbanded and their weapons handed over to the State of Lebanon within six months as part of the detailed security program known as “national reconciliation.” The program is supposed to be carried out within a year to gradually enforce Lebanese government sovereignty on all parts of Lebanon .3

4

Enforcing Lebanese government control of all Lebanon

Supports Lebanese government control over all Lebanese territory [i.e., including south Lebanon , which remained under Hezbollah control even after the IDF withdrew from Lebanon in May 2000, in direct defiance of the Taef Accord and Security Council Resolution 425].

The Taef Accord contains an provision dealing with enforcing Lebanese sovereignty over all of Lebanon . According to the provision, all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias are to be disbanded and the Lebanese security forces are to be reinforced. In addition, the Lebanese government is to renew its control of the country up to the international Israeli-Lebanese border by implementing Security Council Resolution 425, Lebanon is to be liberated from Israeli occupation , the Lebanese army is to be deployed along the border with Israel and security and stability are to be renewed along the border [The IDF withdrew from Lebanon in May 2000, but Hezbollah continues its effective control of south Lebanon. The Syrians prevented the Lebanese government from regaining control of the south and the border in direct violation of both the Taef Accord and Security Council Resolution 1559].

 
   
 
1. From: Council of Lebanese American Organizations, Policy Statement and Analysis of the LebaneseSituation, July 1991.
2. The resolution was initiated by the United States and France following an extension of the tenure of Lebanese President Emil Lahoud in August 2004, accomplished by changing the Lebanese constitution. That was perceived by the United States and France as barefaced Syrian intervention in Lebanon’s internal affairs.
3. Hassan Nasrallah has his own interpretation of the Taef Accord. He claims that the accord “thoroughly guards the resistance” and ignores the issue of disbanding the militias (Al-Manar TV interview with Nasrallah, March 8, 2005). In all probability he meant the role played by Hezbollah in the IDF’s withdrawal from Lebanon. However, Hezbollah’s terrorist-operative infrastructure remains in place although the IDF is no longer in Lebanon and Israel has fully implemented Security Council Resolution 425. In the aforementioned interview, Nasrallah also claimed that since 1982, the United States had not wanted Hezbollah to be armed, however, he claimed, the European community had still not taken a firm stand on the matter.
   
   

     Back to Top