It was this enhanced and unchartered mandate that had resulted in many European countries, including France to reconsider their earlier enthusiasm. While resolving the crisis serves the interests of all parties, these countries are afraid of being caught in the Israel-Hezbollah crossfire.

The UN peacekeepers have often became victims of Israeli strikes against the Hezbollah. Furthermore, the UN resolution also calls for an embargo of arms and ammunitions to Hezbollah from Lebanon’s neighbours — Syria and Iran, two key backers of Hezbollah. The new UN force will have to perform functions of a peace enforcer and this in turn places India in a quandary.

Days after the adoption of Resolution 1701, the Foreign Office ruled out the prospects of India sending additional troops. But the recent utterances of Gharekhan raise doubts about the continued Indian participation. The recent crisis has altered the mandate of the UNIFIL and India would not be able to pretend that its contingents would be ‘observing’, not ‘ensuring’, peace along the Israel-Lebanese border. Either India recognises the new ground realities and adjusts its policy or it pulls out of the UN operations in Lebanon.

At one level, since independence India sees its participation in peace keeping missions both as a sign of its commitment to international peace as well as an international vindication of its impartiality. In recent years peacekeeping is also viewed as a ‘great power’ responsibility. Hence, any Indian pullout of Lebanon would severely undermine its aspirations to play an important role in crisis situations.

... contd.