Peace and security · at 9 min · 3 mentions in this passage
Second, a state does not regain the trust of its citizens through reform alone, but also by reclaiming its national decision making. In that spirit, we did not merely affirm the principle that weapons must be exclusively in the hands of the state, and that decisions on war and peace rest solely with its constitutional institutions. We translate that commitment into decisions taken by the Council of Ministers, notably in August and September of last year and again in March of this year. That was after Lebanon found itself in a war that it did not choose. It was imposed upon us despite our repeated warnings. Again repeated warnings of the dangers of being drawn into it. As the war in the region widened and initiatives to end it multiplied, we held fast to a non-negotiable principle. No one speaks for Lebanon and no one negotiates on its behalf except the Lebanese state through its constitutional institutions. It is true that Lebanon is affected by developments in its surroundings. That does not mean, however, that we accept its becoming once again an arena for the conflicts of others or a burning bargaining chip in their hands. Lebanon's future. Will not be decided on its behalf, nor may its security and stability become the price of settlements concluded in its absence. Third our position on the war has been clear from the outset. We want it to end. We want the cease fire consolidated. We want Israel to withdraw from all Lebanese territory up to our internationally recognised borders, in accordance with the 1949 General Armistice Agreement and as affirmed by resolution 1701. We want the release of all our detainees, the safe and dignified return of our people to their villages and towns, and the reconstruction of what the war has destroyed. It was in that spirit that the Lebanese state entered into negotiations with Israel under the kind auspices of the United States of America and its president, for which we are grateful. With a view to reaching arrangements that ensure an end to the war and the restoration of Lebanon's full sovereignty. The sovereignty to which we are committed is indivisible. It requires Israel's withdrawal from all Lebanese territory. It equally requires the extension of the authority of the Lebanese state through its own forces, over the entirety of its territory, with weapons held by the state alone. It is on these two principles, and on the basis of reciprocity and phased implementation, that the tripartite framework reached in the negotiations rest. However, the success of any agreement is measured not by declared intentions but by fulfilment of commitments. What is required today, therefore, is to complete the translation of this framework into practical steps within a clear timetable and with a verification mechanism that ensures the implementation of all its provisions. Mr. president, in this context, I must pay tribute to the role played by the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, UNIFIL, and to the courage of its leadership, personnel and staff and their sacrifices in preserving stability, supporting the Lebanese Armed forces and implementing resolution 1701. To all the countries that have contributed troops to this force, Lebanon extends its profound thanks and appreciation. We have taken note of Security Council resolution 2790 of 2025, which decided to terminate UNIFIL's operations at the end of this year and to begin its gradual withdrawal, and requested the Secretary general to explore available options for the continued implementation of resolution 1701. What we wish to stress here and today is the need to avert the vacuum that UNIFIL's withdrawal could create, were it to take place without agreement on a new international force to replace it. Such a force should ensure the continuation of monitoring, reporting and liaison functions and its role should complement the requirements for implementing the tripartite framework.
Read around it: ·
