Following a statement by former Lebanese Ambassador to the United Nations Amal Modlly regarding Security Council Resolution 2650 that renewed UNIFIL's mandate, the Lebanese Foreign Ministry clarified in a statement that "in light of some comments made by the former representative at the UN regarding the circumstances surrounding last year's decision to extend UNIFIL's mandate, and to set the record straight, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Emigrants would like to clarify the following: In accordance with the usual practice every year and after conducting the customary internal consultations with all concerned Lebanese parties, the Ministry sent appropriate instructions to Lebanon's permanent mission at the UN in New York via a telegram dated August 22, 2022, whereby it reaffirmed Lebanon’s principled and steadfast position on the necessity of removing the 'language stating that UNIFIL does not need prior approval or that it can independently conduct its tasks, as this language contradicts operational paragraph 16 of Resolution 1701 (2006)'... as well as removing the phrase that 'contradicts the principle of coordination between UNIFIL and the Lebanese army.'
After not receiving a response to its instructions at that time, the Ministry reiterated its request to the mission in New York via a second telegram dated August 28, 2022, just three days before the resolution was issued, with a handwritten note from the Minister of Foreign Affairs on the front page of the telegram stating 'emphasizing the necessity of amending OP16' and adding another handwritten phrase by the minister on the second page of the directive stating 'I reiterate the emphasis on amending operational paragraph OP16 and objecting to the proposed strengthened language in the preamble and operational paragraph 21.'
The statement continued: 'After the resolution was issued, the Ministry inquired with the missions of the concerned and influential countries regarding the reasons for their lack of response to the advocacy campaign conducted by the mission in New York, and the response was that the request had not been followed up at the required level of personal meetings usually conducted by the permanent representative in such cases to make amendments, but was limited to the minimum level of activity.'
The Foreign Ministry emphasized that 'the known constants that its diplomatic staff is keen to protect, including the issue of the operational rules between UNIFIL forces and the Lebanese army which have been stable since 2006, do not actually require repetitive confirming instructions, especially from someone who has held his position for six years and witnessed the annual renewal decision repeatedly, as his imminent departure from his position due to retirement does not absolve him from the responsibility of safeguarding Lebanon's interests until the last moment.'"
