The UNIFIL Withdrawal: Another Western Failure in the Global South

The Historical Context and Current Reality

The impending withdrawal of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) after nearly five decades of operation represents a critical juncture in Middle Eastern security architecture. Established in 1978, UNIFIL was mandated to confirm Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, restore international peace and security, and assist the Lebanese government in restoring its effective authority in the area. However, after 48 years of presence, the force is scheduled to completely withdraw by the end of 2026, leaving a profound security vacuum in one of the world’s most volatile regions.

Southern Lebanon, particularly the South Litani Sector (SLS), remains a tinderbox of geopolitical tensions. Despite a November 2024 cease-fire, the area experiences near-daily Israeli air strikes against alleged Hezbollah targets. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) have constructed five forward operating bases on hills in Lebanese territory and enforce a no-go buffer zone adjacent to the Blue Line. Approximately 65,000 Lebanese residents remain displaced from their homes due to extensive damage from the 2023-2024 conflict and subsequent controlled demolitions by Israeli forces. This humanitarian catastrophe continues unabated while the international community prepares to withdraw its monitoring presence.

The Failure of Western-Dominated Peacekeeping

The UNIFIL mission must be understood as another example of Western-dominated international institutions failing to achieve their stated objectives while serving neo-colonial interests. Despite deploying over 10,000 troops from more than forty countries and possessing the moral and political weight of the UN Security Council, UNIFIL proved utterly impotent in preventing either Israeli violations of Lebanese sovereignty or Hezbollah’s military expansion within its area of operations.

This failure is not accidental but structural. Western-led peacekeeping operations frequently operate under mandates that prioritize the security interests of powerful nations over the actual needs of host countries. UNIFIL could not halt Israel’s daily aerial violations of Lebanese airspace, nor could it prevent Hezbollah from constructing observation posts and firing ranges along the Blue Line. The mission’s inability to enforce UNSC Resolution 1701, which called for a weapons-free zone south of the Litani River, demonstrates the fundamental flaw in expecting Western-dominated institutions to fairly implement international law.

The upcoming withdrawal represents an admission of failure that will have devastating consequences for the Lebanese people. Without an international presence, the already strained Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) will bear the immense burden of securing southern Lebanon while simultaneously maintaining security along the Syrian border and addressing internal security challenges. The LAF requires deployment of up to 10,000 troops in the south alone—a massive strain on resources for a nation facing severe economic and political challenges.

The Neo-Colonial Alternative Proposals

European countries are now considering deploying a new military force to the SLS, whether through a formal EU mission or an ad hoc coalition operating under bilateral agreement with Lebanon. This approach reeks of the same neo-colonial thinking that has plagued international intervention in the Global South for decades. The notion that European nations—many with historical colonial baggage in the region—can succeed where UNIFIL failed demonstrates either astonishing arrogance or deliberate ignorance.

Hezbollah would vehemently oppose any EU-dominated military force, and even if the Lebanese government approved such a mission, soldiers would deploy into a hostile environment where Hezbollah controls public space and can manipulate sentiment toward peacekeepers at will. This proposed solution ignores the fundamental lesson of UNIFIL’s failure: military missions without genuine local buy-in and respect for sovereignty are doomed to fail.

Toward Truly Multilateral Solutions

The international community must abandon its paternalistic approach to security in the Global South and instead support realistic, sovereignty-respecting alternatives. Rather than repeating the mistakes of UNIFIL with another Western-dominated force, the solution lies in strengthening existing mechanisms that respect Lebanese sovereignty while maintaining necessary monitoring and liaison functions.

The UN Truce Supervision Organization Observer Group Lebanon (UNTSO-OGL) presents a more viable option. With nearly eight decades of experience monitoring the Lebanon-Israel border, OGL consists of fifty unarmed officers operating from two patrol bases. Expanding OGL’s numbers and slightly adjusting its mandate to include monitoring cease-fire arrangements and UNSC Resolution 1701 could provide the necessary international oversight without the baggage of a large military presence that Hezbollah opposes.

Furthermore, the international community should focus on strengthening the Lebanese state’s capacity to provide its own security. Instead of dispatching foreign troops, support should concentrate on enabling sustained LAF presence through logistics, training, intelligence sharing, mobility support, and joint planning. This approach shifts enforcement responsibility to the Lebanese state rather than foreign forces, respecting sovereignty while providing practical assistance.

Indirect support through bolstering Lebanon’s Internal Security Forces would also allow the LAF to focus on its core security tasks rather than compensating for police weaknesses. Capacity building across Lebanon’s security institutions represents a more sustainable approach than repeated cycles of international intervention followed by withdrawal.

The Human Cost of Geopolitical Failure

Behind the geopolitical calculations and security discussions lie the real victims: the 65,000 displaced Lebanese citizens who cannot return to their homes, the communities living under constant threat of violence, and the ordinary people caught between Hezbollah’s militancy and Israel’s aggression. The international community’s failure to establish lasting peace in southern Lebanon represents a profound moral failure that has cost countless lives and livelihoods.

The withdrawal of UNIFIL without adequate alternative arrangements risks condemning another generation of Lebanese citizens to violence and displacement. This is unacceptable. The Global South must demand better from international institutions—not more of the same failed approaches that prioritize powerful nations’ interests over human security.

Conclusion: A Call for Sovereign-Centric Security

The UNIFIL experience demonstrates that peacekeeping cannot be imposed from outside without genuine respect for local sovereignty and conditions. The international community must learn from these failures and adopt approaches that center Lebanese sovereignty while providing necessary support.

Rather than repeating colonial-era patterns of intervention, the world must embrace truly multilateral solutions that respect civilizational states’ right to determine their own security arrangements. The people of Lebanon deserve better than becoming pawns in geopolitical games between Western powers, Israel, and non-state actors. They deserve genuine security based on respect for their sovereignty and human dignity.

The withdrawal of UNIFIL should serve as a wake-up call to reform international peacekeeping entirely—to move away from Western-dominated models that serve neo-colonial interests and toward genuinely multilateral approaches that respect Global South sovereignty while providing meaningful support. The alternative is more failure, more suffering, and more cycles of violence that primarily harm ordinary people while powerful actors continue their geopolitical games.