The first groups of European peacekeepers will start arriving in southern Lebanon this week. Later on they will form half of the UNIFIL-2 (United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon) with an overall strength of 15,000 men. The UN Secretariat reports that Italy and France have promised to send the biggest contingents - 3,000 and 2,000 peacekeepers, respectively. Poland, Belgium, Finland, and Slovenia will add soldiers to make the total of 7,000 Europeans.
The EU deserves applause for making all its members so enthusiastic. Two weeks ago this could hardly have been predicted. In late July, when Israel's clashes with Hizbollah had already developed into a new war, the EU leaders were in a strange stupor. Later on, this lack of action gradually gave way to a desire to pass responsibility to the mighty United States.
In those days, the EU countries followed the Iraqi pattern. Britain again supported the U.S., striving to give Israel an opportunity to destroy Hizbollah's military infrastructure. France declared solidarity with the countries that demanded immediate and unconditional ceasefire.
On the whole, the Lebanese events were a tough test for the European hopes to pursue a more or less common line in promoting security and international relations. Now Brussels can make a sign of relief. It proved capable of doing it.
But this process is not free of zigzags. France, for one, which initially agreed to head the international peacekeepers in Lebanon, suddenly slashed its contingent to 2,000 men because of the apprehensions that the UN mandate may provide for participation in Hizbollah's disarmament. Now Jacques Chirac returned to the initial position but insists that a 15,000-strong UNIFIL-2 is excessive for Lebanon. "What is the right figure - 4,000, 5,000, 6,000? I don't know," the French President admitted frankly.
But these are secondary details. The main point is that for the first time ever the extended European Union has managed to unite the positions of its members on its leading role in maintaining peace in one of the world's hot spots. Moreover, it has replaced NATO in this role. In the beginning Israel insisted on NATO's leadership in the peacekeeping force in Lebanon.
The effectiveness of the UNIFIL-2 will largely depend on its ability to help the Lebanese army seal Lebanon's harbors and borders from Syrian and Iranian arms supplies to Hizbollah.
Judging by all, this Shiite movement is going through hard times. Worsened relations with the Lebanese population are spoiling the joy over Israel's inability to destroy it. It seems that many Lebanese are starting to blame Hizbollah militants for the war-inflicted misfortunes. Otherwise it is difficult to explain the repentant speech of Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah on Lebanese television, in which he actually admitted that the capture of Israeli soldiers on July 12 was not wise against the backdrop of subsequent suffering and destruction.
But this does not mean in the least that Hizbollah will disarm itself of its own free will. The UN peacekeepers are not going to use force for disarming Hizbollah combatants either, because their mandate does not instruct them to do so. It is clear that the truce in southern Lebanon will be extremely fragile as long as this territory is oversaturated with armed militants and secret rocket arsenals.
It would be appropriate to recall here that at least one more country, Britain, has a solid experience of disarming the once powerful nationalistic organizations.
In the 1970s, the Irish Republican Army (IRA) acquired the most modern samples of arms, and impressive stocks of Semtex explosives owing to lavish funding by the Irish Diaspora in the U.S., and secret supplies from abroad, mainly from Libya. IRA disarmament talks have been conducted with varying success since the late 1990s. The IRA began to turn over its secret arsenals to the authorities in October 2001. To control this procedure, London involved authoritative international observers like Canadian General John de Chastelain and Finnish former Prime Minister Martti Ahtisaari.
No parallel is perfect. But the sides interested in peace in southern Lebanon should not lose faith. The European experience shows that steady negotiations on gradual reduction of the Hizbollah arsenals are not so improbable.
