UNSC: DPKO BRIEFS ON RECOMMENDATIONS/CONCLUSIONS

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 USUN NEW YORK 000076 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/11/2020 TAGS: PREL KPKO UNSC IS LE SUBJECT: UNSC: DPKO BRIEFS ON RECOMMENDATIONS/CONCLUSIONS OF UNIFIL JOINT TECHNICAL REVIEW REF: 09 USUN NEW YORK 1102 Classified By: Ambassador Alex D. Wolff for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d). ¶1. (SBU) Summary: The Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) and UNIFIL's Strategic Military Cell (SMC) briefed Security Council members at an informal meeting on February 5 on the key conclusions and recommendations of the Joint UNIFIL-DPKO Technical Review. The review envisions no radical changes to the force or its overall strength but does seek to enhance its capabilities, responsiveness, flexibility, and reconnaissance. The Secretary-General will write the Security Council by February 12, likely noting his approval of the recommendations, which will also be transmitted in his next quarterly report on the implementation of UNSCR 1701, due to the Council at the end of February. No Council action is required before DPKO and UNIFIL begin implementation of the recommendations. End summary. ¶2. (SBU) Wolfgang Weisbrod-Weber, Director of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO)'s Asia and Middle East Division, and Major General Zahari Siregar (Indonesian),head of UNIFIL's Strategic Military Cell (SMC),briefed Security Council members at an informal meeting on February 5 regarding the key conclusions and recommendations of the Joint UNIFIL-DPKO Technical Review. (Note: USUN e-mailed to IO/UNP and IO/PSC the handout distributed at the meeting, entitled "Summary of recommendations of the Joint UNIFIL-DPKO Technical Review. End note.) No radical changes to force -------------- ¶3. (SBU) According to the DPKO/SMC briefing, the review does not recommend any radical changes to UNIFIL or its overall strength. Rather, Weisbrod-Weber emphasized, the recommendations are designed to enhance UNIFIL's capabilities and improve its responsiveness, flexibility, and reconnaissance. The land forces will continue to be divided into two brigade-level sectors with the same overall numbers, but the aim is to have a more task-oriented structure, according to General Siregar. The East (Spain commands) and West (Italy commands) Sectors will be divided into Forward and Depth Areas. The Forward Areas will control the Blue Line and carry out operational activities in the vicinity of the Blue Line with infantry battalions. The Depth Areas will focus on continuous surveillance and prevent and deter any hostile activity, operating with mobile battalions with cameras and sensors. Sector West will have two depth battalions; two forward battalions; and one reserve company (could also be used in Sector East). Sector East will have three forward battalions and one depth battalion. Blue Line and Ghajar Task Forces; new investigative unit -------------- ¶4. (SBU) The review recommends the creation of a Blue Line (BL) Task Force with two engineering companies with dedicated engineering capabilities to accelerate the process of marking the BL and construction of the BL patrol road. (Note: Presently, UNIFIL has one engineering company. End note.) General Siregar noted that this would allow a combat engineering company to operate in each sector. The review also recommends the creation of a Ghajar Task Force composed of a "mono-national company-size unit (Gendarmerie, Carabinieri, or Guardia Civil) and a civil affairs component" to interface/coordinate with the LAF/IDF/local Ghajar Administrative Office. The French expert asked DPKO if UNIFIL has the necessary authorities to administer northern Ghajar after an Israeli withdrawal. Weisbrod-Weber responded that there is no need for an additional mandate as UNIFIL currently has the necessary authorities and Israel just needs to complete its withdrawal. The review also recommends the establishment of a permanent technical investigation cell to supervise ongoing investigations of incidents and violations and ensure regular investigative follow-up, instead of the previous ad hoc arrangements. The unit's staff would also have specific investigative skills, including forensic skills. Maritime Task Force -------------- ¶5. (SBU) The review recommends the regular deployment of nine ships in the Maritime Task Force, including a minimum of four frigates or three frigates and one corvette-sized ship plus four patrol boats and one support ship. It also urged regular ship to task analysis so that there can be a gradual hand-over of capacities/responsibilities to the LAF Navy. USUN NEW Y 00000076 002 OF 003 Air Assets/hospitals -------------- ¶6. (SBU) The review does not recommend any change in the size or assets of UNIFIL's air operations but does suggest obtaining thermal imaging equipment to allow for nighttime operations, especially medevacs. The review recommends eliminating one of UNIFIL's two hospitals and upgrading the remaining one in Naqoura. Headquarters/Liaison -------------- ¶7. (SBU) The review recommends strengthening the Deputy Force Commander position in order to allow the Force Commander to focus on strategic issues and liaison with the two parties. (Note: The UNIFIL Deputy Force Commander, an Indian national, is due to rotate out at the end of March, according to an SMC contact. DPKO is currently reviewing successor candidates from South Korea, Malaysia, and Nepal. End note.) The review further recommends the strengthening of the Liaison Section to enhance coordination between UNIFIL and the LAF and IDF and the continued pursuit of the establishment of a liaison office in Tel Aviv to further enhance liaison and allow for strategic-level dialogue with the IDF. The review recommends formalizing a regular strategic dialogue mechanism between UNIFIL and the LAF to carry out regular analyses and set benchmarks reflecting the correlation between the capacity/responsibilities of UNIFIL vis-a-vis the capacity/responsibilities of the LAF. It also recommends a separate study to address the issue of increased UNIFIL involvement in tracking/formalizing bilateral assistance to the LAF specifically tied to implementing its 1701-mandated tasks. Next steps -------------- ¶8. (SBU) The Secretary-General will send the Security Council a letter, likely by February 12, stating the main findings of the joint technical review (in line with his August 6, 2009 letter to the Council which suggested this review) and likely noting his approval of those findings. The main conclusions and recommendations will also be referenced in the Secretary-General's next quarterly 1701 report, due to the Council at the end of February. Then DPKO and UNIFIL will begin the process of implementing the recommendations. French Mission reaction -------------- ¶9. (C) PolOff spoke February 9 with her French counterpart Benedicte de Montlaur who said she thought the Technical Review exercise was a good one but that the Council should not seek a text endorsing it since that could increase tensions within the Council. Some members might attempt to broaden a text and have it also focus on either or both parties' violations of UNSCR 1701. If there were strong calls for a Council reaction, she suggested that the Council agree to press elements limited to welcoming the review and the new UNIFIL Force Commander. (Note: As recently as the Council's October 1701 consultations, the Council was divided on press elements, unable to agree on whether to call on the next Lebanese government to implement all relevant Security Council resolutions (USG preference) or only UNSCR 1701 (Russian preference). End note.) Lebanese Mission reaction -------------- ¶10. (C) Lebanese Deputy Perm Rep Caroline Ziade attended the February 5 meeting. She remarked that UNIFIL should do its utmost on liaison and coordination, including by establishing a UNIFIL office in Tel Aviv; that UNIFIL should prevent violations by all parties; and that Lebanon would do everything necessary to implement its obligations. (Comment: USUN believes that the Lebanese mission, as one of the parties, should refrain from any non-technical questions at such meetings with Council members. They have bilateral meetings with DPKO where they can articulate their political concerns. End comment.) Ziade told PolOff on February 9 that Lebanon does not seek a Council product on the review or from the Council's March 1701 consultations. Israeli mission -------------- ¶11. (C) Israeli Deputy Perm Rep Daniel Carmon had expressed concern to Ambassador Wolff that Lebanon, one of the parties, USUN NEW Y 00000076 003 OF 003 would be in the room for DPKO's meeting with the Security Council while the Israeli mission would not be present. DPKO confirmed to PolOff that it had briefed both the Lebanese and Israeli missions separately on the conclusions and recommendations of the review. After the February 5 meeting, USUN shared the DPKO handout with the Israeli mission and offered an extensive readout of the meeting. RICE