Is there a difference of opinion on the meaning of UNSC Resolution 1701? Yesterday the Lebanese ambassador to the United Nations was quoted as rejecting the idea that Lebanon will disarm Hezbollah:
The diplomat added that the 15,000 Lebanese soldiers to be dispatched to south Lebanon to help keep the peace alongside a similarly-sized international UN force “are not going to use force” to disarm the Hezbollah militia which has been battling Israel.
“Hezbollah will just leave the area as armed elements as I understand it, and the Lebanese army will take over the whole region along with the United Nations forces,” he said.
Perhaps I’m missing some but that either that’s inconsistent with Operative Paragraph 3 of the resolution:
Emphasises the importance of the extension of the control of the government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory in accordance with the provisions of resolution 1559 (2004) and resolution 1680 (2006), and of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, for it to exercise its full sovereignty, so that there will be no weapons without the consent of the government of Lebanon and no authority other than that of the government of Lebanon;
or it’s an acknowledgement that Hezbollah is armed with the consent of the Lebanese government and that Hezbollah acts with the authority of the Lebanese government.
