The diplomats are a failure

Let's look at the word diplomacy. Wiki described it as an art and practice of conducting negotiations between representatives of groups or nations. The name itself comes from the Greek language, and roughly means "(having) double eyes" (suggesting that a negotiator's main attribute should be the ability to understand the interests of all participants). It can also be defined as an employment of tact to gain strategic advantage, one set of tools being the phrasing of statements in a non-confrontational, or social manner.

As we review the diplomats' performance in addressing the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict, it is really an utter failure.

The attempt of a UN ceasefire resolution has done nothing to stop the violence. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called the measure "the first step, not the only step." Of course, the resolution calls for a cessation of hostilities. A second resolution would be needed to authorise a multi-national force and buffer zone to separate the two warring parties.

The impact of the first resolution, if it passes, is likely to be negligible. The Syrian and Iranian foreign ministers have rejected the resolutions outright, obviously. Lebanon's parliament speaker and Hezbollah's negotiator, Nabih Berri, said the plan was unacceptable since it would leave Israeli troops on Lebanese territory. Interestingly enough, he also chooses to include additional demands on behalf of Beirut -- release of prisoners and a dispute over the Chebaa Farms border area.

The Lebanese government had the nerve to ask the UN to revise the resolution, demanding that Israel pull its forces out immediately with the end of hostilities. Yet, it could not explain how it would go about stopping rocket attacks conducted by the Hezbollah terrorist forces, nor it would explain the presence of Iranian and Syrian security officers assisting with the training and equipment of these forces. It also failed to explain why the official Lebanese military forces were unable to disarm Hezbollah over the last year. It has been reported by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) that Hezbollah had amassed an arsenal of about 10,000 (ten thousand) rockets over the past six years, and about 3,000 (three thousand) have been fired at Israel so far.

Complaints about the Israeli offensive can only be measured when compared with the 1982 offensive. During the previous conflict, Israeli troops reached as far as Beirut resulting in over 6,000 Lebanese deaths. Today, over 600 civilians are dead and over 10,000 Israeli troops are concentrated in south Lebanon. The difference is that Israeli are trying their best to hit targets with precision strikes in order to minimise civilian losses. However, it is quite difficult since Hezbollah forces are firing their rockets from civilian areas.

International decision making would not have any effect until those blue-helmet troops touch the ground, but they are already there. There is actually a UN mission being conducted there called UNFIL (United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon). It was created back in 1978 to confirm Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, to restore the international peace and security, and help the Lebanese government restore its effective authority in the area. Now, after hearing this, you ought to have concluded that this UN mission has been a COMPLETE FAILURE!

The force has nearly 2,000 troops and 50 unarmed military observers and according to their UN fact sheet, it was tasked with seeking to maintain a ceasefire along the 70-mile UN "Blue Line" between Israel and Lebanon, by patrolling, observing, reporting violations and liaising with the parties. What a job performance, and you really have to thank the diplomats because their mission mandate is pretty much restrictive, they could not do anything about the violations occurring on the Lebanese side.

It would seem that when a second UN resolution is passed to authorise an international stabilisation force, it would likely replace UNIFIL, but how effective would this force be. It will likely be lead by the French. However, the US, Canada, and the UK would not send troops. Italy, Greece and Turkey may send some. Indonesia and Malaysia were also willing. NATO and EU organisations as a whole are not willing to send troops in their name. But the biggest question is whether this force will be STRONGER than the UNIFIL force that is currently in place? Would it be given the authority to disarm Hezbollah? How much authority would be given to enforce the peace?

In any case, much of the international community have been unhappy with the diplomatic performance of the United States. Most would believe that the US was slow to respond to what is becoming an extraordinary destructive conflict that threatens a wider war. If the US was busy criticising the UN for inaction, it seems hypocritical for the lone superpower to do the same thing. Again, the international standing of this great American power has probably been knocked down several pegs. Even the UK's Tony Blair may have lost some credibility with his Labor party and the populace back home for siding with President Bush during this crisis.

The diplomats should learn to act, and act quickly instead of watching and commenting on how violence does not solve everything, civilian deaths, the need for humanitarian aid, and so on. There is a time for political posturing, and there is a time to ignore the political consequences and do what is right to preserve the peace and stability of the entire Middle East region.

Note: Ever wonder if those two Israeli soldiers that were kidnapped by Hezbollah on July 12 are still alive? Since that day, this conflict has been going on for about 25 days.

Channel News Asia - Asia calls for Mideast intervention, mulls sending troops

Associated Press - Israel hits hard but suffers 15 deaths

CNN.com - Hezbollah rockets pound northern Israel

UNIFIL Fact Sheet - URL