'It's not about peacekeeping, but peace-making'

The Jakarta Post ,  Jakarta   |  Tue, 09/05/2006 7:26 AM

Indonesia has taken part in numerous UN peacekeeping missions since the 1950s. Now Jakarta is ready to contribute soldiers to the peacekeeping force being assembled for Lebanon, where Israel and Hizbollah fought a 34-day war. To get some perspective on this latest mission, The Jakarta Post's Kurniawan Hari interviewed Rais Abin, the Indonesian general who commanded the UN peacekeeping force in the Middle East from 1975 to 1979 following the war between Egypt and Israel. The following are excerpts of the interview:

Question: What are the most important aspects of the peacekeeping mission in Lebanon?

Answer: I think UN Resolution 1701, which is the basis for the deployment of the (peacekeeping) troops in Lebanon, has not fully been understood either by state officials or the public at large here.

If we read the UN resolution carefully, it suggests that what we need is not a peacekeeping force but a peace-making force or a peace-building force.

I underline the demand of French President Jacques Chirac that the UN authorize the troops deployed in Lebanon to protect themselves. This brings a consequence that the French troops dispatched to Lebanon would be a combat force.

Paragraph 1 of Resolution 1701 states that the UN Security Council ""calls for a full cessation of hostilities"". This means that the hostilities have not ended. So how can we regard the troops as a peacekeeping force? How does the current situation differ from when you led a UN peacekeeping force?

Today's situation is different from the days when I was assigned. At that time, there was already a cessation of hostilities. I came to the area as the commander of the UN peacekeeping force when the hostilities had ceased.

Given the current situation, where there are still hostilities in Lebanon, my question is: Is sending troops to Lebanon the right policy?

What do you suggest?

Before we enter the ""beehive"" -- I call the area in southern Lebanon the ""beehive"" -- it is better for us to think it through thoroughly.

We have to clarify the mission first. It is not peacekeeping, but peace-making. In this case, we must be ready for combat. Whether we like it or not, we have to follow in the footsteps of the French government, which is sending a semi-combat force. But are we ready (for this)? We must not take this issue lightly.

Could you elaborate?

I think our government officials do not completely understand the UN resolution or the rule of thumb in peacekeeping missions. Foreign Minister (Hassan Wirayuda), for example, said he was surprised by Israel's rejection of troops coming from countries that had no diplomatic ties with the Jewish state. That is the right of Israel. It is true, however, that the UN Security Council can decide and bring in troops from any country in the world.

But if we focus on the ultimate goal, which is to build peace in Lebanon, we must take Israel's rejection into serious consideration. Support from Israel is important in this peace-making mission. Of course, we will be able to build peace if we win support from the conflicting parties.

Should we hold talks with Israel then?

When I was nominated by UN secretary-general Kurt Waldheim to lead the UN peacekeeping force, I immediately met Israeli defense minister Shimon Perez to ask for a security guarantee.

I told Perez that I was honored to be nominated as the commander of the UN force. I said that I could succeed if I got support from both Israel and Egypt -- the warring states.

Perez said the appointment of a person from a country which had no ties with Israel set a bad precedent. But he also said it was a good choice.

Now we are facing a similar situation. We cannot hide under the UN regulation and text. The more important thing is the support and cooperation of the conflicting parties.

Would Indonesian troops, once they join the UN force, have to be ready to fight Hizbollah?

According to Resolution 1701, Lebanon is responsible for disarming all the armed groups, including Hizbollah. This disarmament is required so that there will be no weapons or authority in Lebanon other than that of the Lebanese state.

UNIFIL (UN Interim Force in Lebanon) is mandated to monitor the cessation of hostilities, and accompany and support the Lebanese armed forces as they move throughout the south, including along the Blue Line, as Israel withdraws its armed forces from Lebanon. In short, UNIFIL will be engaged in Lebanon in the disarmament.

UNIFIL is authorized to resist attempts by forceful means to prevent it from discharging its duties under the mandate of the Security Council.

When I was assigned to the peacekeeping mission in 1975, personnel brought weapons only for self-defense. Under the current resolution, the troops are allowed to use force (and artillery) to retaliate.

I don't think that Lebanese troops will open fire on UNIFIL, but I will not be surprised if fire comes from Hizbollah or Israel. The UN force may take forcible measures against groups considered non-cooperative.

What is Indonesia lacking for peacekeeping missions?

I have the impression that we never learn from experience. Every time we deal with a mission, it's like we are dealing with something new -- something we have never done before.

When I returned from my mission in 1979, I suggested the government set up a bureau for peacekeeping missions. I wrote books on practical guidelines for peacekeeping missions.

Several countries that often send troops for missions, like Sweden, Norway, Finland and Austria, have special bureaus for this. These offices keep the personnel updated on peacekeeping missions. They have regular meetings. Anytime there is a need, the personnel are ready.

Copyright © 2008 The Jakarta Post - PT Bina Media Tenggara. All Rights Reserved.