There has been much talk recently about United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559, amid statements – that are surprising and should be rejected – to abolish the resolution. Can a Lebanese who is determined to protect his country's sovereignty and institute a state based on laws call for canceling UNSCR 1559, as some officials tell diplomats that the resolution “is dead”?! We should recall the conditions under which UNSCR 1559 was issued, when the international community felt the violation of Lebanon's Constitution and laws had taken place with the extension of then-President Emile Lahoud's mandate, even though the international community rejected the move. This included the countries closes to Syria, such as Iran, under then President Mohammad Khatami, who urged his Syrian ally to not extend Lahoud's term. But events took place anyway, and Lahoud's term was extended, as imposed on the Lebanese Parliament, and despite the rejection of this move. UNSCR 1559 was issued, to halt the violation of the rule of law, acknowledge the sovereignty of Lebanese decisions and remove foreign influence, which has always covered every single issue, from appointing the president of the Republic to appointing any low-level state official. This resolution, with American and French sponsorship, by the Security Council, was aimed at protecting the sovereignty of Lebanon and the state of laws; it called for turning relations between Lebanon and Syria into a relationship between two fraternal states, exchanging embassies. This diplomatic relationship was an embodiment of Lebanon's sovereignty. So why do some call for abolishing this resolution? Because it protects Lebanese sovereignty and acknowledges the establishment of a state of law, in which the Lebanese state wields security authority. This is natural in an independent and sovereign state that wants to build a safe future for its people. However, there are those, in Lebanon and abroad, beginning with Iran and some of the Palestinian factions, who do not have an interest in safeguarding Lebanon's sovereignty. The proof lies in recent security incidents, such as explosions in the southern suburbs, and clashes in Ain al-Hilweh refugee camp. It is in Lebanon's interest, sooner or later, to implement the provisions of UNSCR 1559, namely establish a state based on law, with the highest security power in the hands of the Lebanese authorities. The proof that it is Lebanon's interest for the state to be strong and control the security situation is that despite the improvement in political conditions, it is still forbidden for Middle East Airlines planes to fly directly to the United States, and for the national carrier to land in American airports. Now, the US has put Lebanon on a list of 17 countries of special interest, which subjects their citizens arriving in the US to exceptional searches, in order to prevent terrorist attacks. Certainly, the state's lack of total control over the country's security weakens the trust of Lebanese and the international community, and prevents the country from becoming a state based on laws. Therefore, UNSCR 1559 must remain in place, because it protects these principles, as do other resolutions, on Israel's withdrawal from territories it occupies. It is necessary, to recall that Israel violates international law. UNSCR 1559, despite all of the attacks by some in Lebanon, is an international resolution that will not be struck down, because international resolutions are there to be implemented. No one in Lebanon today doubts the need to combat Israel and its daily violations. However, all Lebanese hope that influence on the security front is under the control of state authorities, in partnership with the Lebanese resistance. The strength of the Lebanese state should materialize today, because it is the sole authority to supervise security in the country, so that there are no “security islands” here and there, outside the control of the state of laws. UNSCR 1559 is a guarantee for the principles that safeguard a sovereign state of laws.
