The European Union's decision to establish a new mission to support the Lebanese Army and Internal Security Forces opens questions about the nature of the European presence in border and port security, coinciding with the approaching end of the UNIFIL mission in southern Lebanon.
While the European mandate includes training and advice in monitoring land borders, maritime security, and combating smuggling, a Lebanese ministerial source confirms to Asharq Al-Awsat that the mission will not undertake monitoring the eastern border with Syria or any executive security tasks, which is a distinction between assisting the Lebanese agencies in monitoring, and undertaking them directly.
On Monday, the Council of the European Union approved the establishment of the “European Union Support Mission in Lebanon” for an initial term of 3 years, which includes a military component to train the army in border control, reconnaissance and operational coordination, and a civil component to support the Internal Security Forces in combating smuggling and cybercrime and enhancing the security of ports, including the port of Beirut. The mission's deployment has not yet begun. It requires a separate European decision after completing operational planning.
The ministerial source told Asharq Al-Awsat that the mission “will not be a substitute for the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), and will not undertake any direct security tasks, including monitoring the eastern border with Syria.”
He added: “The Europeans are clear on this issue, and they confirm that they are not coming to replace UNIFIL, but rather to carry out a specific mission based on helping Lebanon, the army and security forces, and providing training and expertise in multiple fields, including those related to mines.”
He explains that “the mission does not come to monitor the eastern border with Syria, or to replace the international forces in the south, but rather to assist the army, the internal security forces, and state institutions, by transferring expertise, training, and providing technical support, and this support may develop later to include supplies and equipment.”
He stresses that “work is still continuing to maintain UNIFIL forces,” stressing that “the European mission is separate from the mission of international forces, and does not aim to replace them.” He points out that it is “similar in principle to the support that British forces previously provided to the Lebanese army, especially in the areas of training, rehabilitation and technical assistance, but it will be on a larger scale.”
The move comes as UNIFIL's regular operations are about to cease on December 31, in accordance with Resolution 2790, with the gradual withdrawal beginning during the year 2027, while the declared European mission is limited to training, advice, and capacity building, without a mandate to implement United Nations field patrols.
In turn, the Chairman of the Foreign and Expatriate Affairs Committee, Representative Fadi Alama, told Asharq Al-Awsat: “We do not yet have much information regarding the nature of the proposed European mission and the tasks that it can undertake, but what we understand is that there is communication and discussions between European countries regarding a specific formula to support Lebanon, without its details having been fully explained to us.” He explains that “the idea, according to the information available to us, falls within the framework of supporting the Lebanese army; Whether in terms of training, or providing technical and logistical assistance, and not within the framework of assuming a direct security role or interfering in Lebanese security affairs.”
He revealed contacts that took place with the Polish side last week, noting that “the conversation dealt with the weapons capabilities that Poland possesses, and we sought to obtain the greatest possible amount of support for Lebanon, in addition to trying to find out whether there was a possibility to influence the direction of reconsidering international resolution (2790) related to the mission of (the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon - UNIFIL).”
He added: “Our main focus was on supporting Lebanon, and on the possibility of having an international framework in which European and other countries participate, allowing them to attend, follow up, monitor, and provide support to the Lebanese army.”
Regarding the ports, he stresses that “we have no information about a European intention to assume control of the Lebanese ports or direct security supervision over them,” stressing that “what we sensed is the presence of a European desire to help Lebanon, by providing technical support and training and strengthening the capabilities of the Lebanese army, and not moving to assuming security responsibilities directly.”
Professor of Law and Foreign Policy at the Paris School of Graduate Studies, Mohieddine Al-Shehimi, told Asharq Al-Awsat, “The basic idea of the presence of the European force, whatever its form, scope of work, powers, and limits of its movement, is not limited to the field, operational, and logistical aspects. Rather, it is fundamentally related to the continued European support for Lebanon, accompanying the Lebanese state in completing its path towards implementing international resolutions, and supporting the diplomatic path it is following to restore its sovereignty and authority.”
He stresses that “the European mission will not replace the UN mission at all, and it is not possible to talk about replacing an international force with a European force,” adding that “European support must be a means to help the Lebanese state regain the initiative, control its decision, and enhance its ability to exercise its authority, in parallel with continued international support for Lebanon.”
He explains that “the nature of the new European mission will be different from the nature of the United Nations force, whether in terms of scope of work, powers, or implementation mechanisms,” and that “the proposed European role is based on a formula of partnership with the Lebanese authorities, making the Lebanese state an essential partner in determining priorities and implementing tasks.”
He believes that “discussing support for the security of Lebanese borders, crossings, and facilities does not necessarily mean transferring these responsibilities to European parties; There is a difference between providing assistance, training, and expertise, strengthening Lebanese capabilities, and assuming direct security supervision of these sites.”
He stresses that “direct European security supervision, in the operational and field sense, is not yet on the table,” pointing out that “the details regarding borders, crossings, and facilities, and the limits of the powers that can be granted to the European mission, remain linked to the arrangements that are being developed,” stressing that “the basis for this approach is to help Lebanese institutions carry out their responsibilities, and not to replace them in managing security or making sovereign decisions.”
