Listen to the article
Exactly twenty years and one month after its adoption, UN Security Council Resolution 1559 is back on the agenda, and with urgency, given the deluge of iron and fire raining down on Lebanon due to a war triggered by the armed group Hezbollah in support of Hamas.
While the resolution facilitated the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon in 2005, its full implementation, particularly regarding the disarmament of all militias and the exercise of government authority over the entire Lebanese territory, remains incomplete, casting a shadow over the country’s sovereignty and independence.
This UN resolution, viewed by some as international support for the Lebanese state, is condemned by Hezbollah as “interference” in Lebanon’s internal affairs. However, when it comes to interference, is the “protégé” of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) in a position to criticize?
Nonetheless, this resolution remains at the center of the debate about Lebanon’s future. Unfortunately, UN resolutions are often only the formal expression of the position of Security Council member states, most often lacking binding legal force.
With Hezbollah’s rise to power and its assumption of the right to decide matters of war and peace, the Lebanese state has gradually ceded its authority to the pro-Iranian group.
Resolution 1559, adopted on September 2, 2004, was the result of a local cross-community dynamic, supported by an international one, culminating in the French-American summit in Normandy between French President Jacques Chirac and US President George Bush, as Iranian influence in the region became a common concern for Paris and Washington.
The Franco-American initiative sought to restore Lebanon’s sovereignty by calling for the withdrawal of foreign forces and the disarmament of Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias. While the Syrian withdrawal was a success, disarming militias remains a significant challenge.
In fact, this resolution primarily targeted one militia: Hezbollah. While most Lebanese armed factions had disarmed following the 1989 Taif Agreement, Hezbollah did not comply, asserting its role as a “resistance” force rather than a militia. Consequently, it retained and subsequently strengthened its military capabilities, positioning itself as an indispensable force—both politically (does it not hold a de facto veto over certain issues, particularly regarding the presidency?) and militarily (doesn’t the pro-Iranian group maintain a monopoly on arms in southern Lebanon?).
Hezbollah justifies its retention of weapons as necessary for defending Lebanon against Israel. However, while this stance has garnered support from part of the Lebanese population, particularly in the South, doesn’t it simultaneously expose parts of Lebanon and its citizens to the fire of the Israeli army? In this context, Hezbollah’s military capability—arguably the world’s most powerful paramilitary group—constitutes a significant obstacle to the Lebanese state’s sovereignty. Is it not Hezbollah that, disregarding Lebanese citizens of any faith, chose to drag the country into a new war against Israel?
Reviving the Debate on Disarmament
The May 2008 crisis, during which Hezbollah used its weapons to oppose government decisions, marked a turning point in the perception of its military potential. This show of force reminded everyone that Hezbollah is not, as its followers constantly claim, merely a “resistance” force against Israel, but a major political player capable of heavily (with all the weight of its arsenal) influencing the country’s internal balance. This display of force rekindled the debate on the need for disarmament, but it also strengthened Hezbollah’s grip on Lebanon, making any attempt at disarmament even more delicate and risky.
For Samy Gemayel, leader of the Kataeb Party, Resolution 1559 represents the only possible path towards a Lebanon freed from the threat of militias and foreign influences. According to him, “as long as this resolution is not implemented, the lives of the Lebanese will remain in limbo.” He argues that the monopoly on arms must return exclusively to the Lebanese army (Max Weber would have agreed), and that “Resolution 1701, adopted after the 2006 war to pacify the southern border, would not have been necessary if 1559 had been fully implemented.”
Hezbollah and its allies, starting with Michel Aoun, have always viewed Resolution 1559 as a trap set by the international community. Aoun himself admitted that he supported the withdrawal of Syrian troops but always refused that the issue of Hezbollah’s disarmament be addressed by external powers: “I wanted a purely Lebanese vision of the disarmament process,” he stressed to our colleagues at L’Orient-Le Jour in 2015.
The lack of progress on this issue is also linked to the complexity of regional relations and the instrumentalization of Lebanon by foreign powers. The rise of Iran and its unwavering support for its protege complicates the situation further. Thus, any solution to Hezbollah’s arms issue seems likely to be considered within a broader framework, including the Iranian nuclear question and tensions with Israel.
Towards Increased Internationalization?
The international community, despite having lost some interest in the implementation of Resolution 1559, continues to closely monitor developments in Lebanon. Hezbollah’s growing involvement in regional conflicts, particularly in Syria and more recently in its confrontation with Israel, raises concerns about the country’s future stability. Efforts to revive national dialogue on Hezbollah’s weapons, initiated by former President Michel Sleiman and other leaders, have never really borne fruit. Every attempt at dialogue is indeed blocked by divergent interests, including the interests of Iran, which motivate the green and yellow-bannered troops.
Resolution 1559, although often criticized and frequently ignored, remains a key document for Lebanon’s future. It embodies the aspirations of a sovereign state, free from foreign interference, capable of controlling its territory without relying on armed non-state actors. However, as long as geopolitical realities remain unchanged, and as long as Hezbollah remains an indispensable player on the Lebanese scene, full implementation of this resolution seems unlikely.
The last time the international community referenced Resolution 1559 was through UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres in 2019: “I again call on Hezbollah and all other concerned parties to refrain from any military activity inside or outside the country, in accordance with the provisions of the Taif Accords and Resolution 1559.” Since then, nothing has changed. However, with the assassination of Hezbollah’s powerful Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah and the elimination of several senior officials from the pro-Iranian militia, coupled with Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz’s emphasis on the disarmament of this militia, is Resolution 1559 back on the agenda?
Lebanon finds itself caught between two fires: on one side, international pressure to disarm Hezbollah and restore state authority; on the other, the reality of an over-armed militia playing a disproportionate role in internal politics.
The road to Lebanon’s complete sovereignty will undoubtedly be long, arduous, and winding, but it appears that we have embarked on it nonetheless.
