In this report, the Secretary-General provides an update pursuant to S/2014/296 on the activities of the United Nations in Lebanon. With the recent resurgence of hostilities with the Israel Defense Forces over the Blue Line, as well as the spillover effect from the Syrian conflict, the report places an emphasis on the security and DDR of the region. Included in the report is an Introduction; Implementation of Resolution (Situation in the Area of Operations of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, Security and Liaison Arrangements, Disarming Armed Groups, Arms Embargo and Border Control, Landmines and Cluster Bombs, Delineation of Borders); Security and Safety of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon; Deployment of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon; and Observations.
Within this report, the Secretary-General provides a transparent view on the GBV prevention and refugee challenges needing further attention from both the Government of Lebanon and UNIFL. Lebanon’s weak legal framework and limited resources are reported as responsible for the lack of protection afforded to female refugees, who make up 80% of the Syrian refugees (OPP 51). Insufficient protection of female refugees is state as the primary cause of GBV against these refugees. However, it must be noted that the data provided for GBV, women and children are conflated. Regarding women’s promotion in the security sector, the report does state that of the 282 international and 680 national civilian staff, 81 and 155 women, respectively, are incorporated (OPP 58). Furthermore, of the 52 United Nations Truce Supervision Organization military observers, two are women.
While the report does discuss issues of women in the Lebanese security sector, as refugees, and as victims of GBV, the report disregards women’s concerns in humanitarian services and access, as well as their roles in justice and DDR. The Secretary-General should include information regarding actions taken by UNIFL and the Government of Lebanon to ensure women access to humanitarian services that are also gender-specific. Furthermore, the neglect of sex-disaggregated data and reporting of GBV infers to the lack of regard given to women’s protection concerns in justice. With the report’s large emphasis on DDR in the region, women’s roles must be incorporated. There should be gender-sensitive programming afforded for women combatants and support services for female dependents.
In comparison to the MAP report issued in August 2013, this report also fails to incorporate women’s concerns in the arena of DDR and justice. However, the report does strive to provide information that posits women as central to UNIFL’s work on human rights. This information largely centers on women as refugees and victims of GBV.
Unlike S/2014/296, this report does address concerns regarding women, peace and security. This report places an emphasis on border control and the influx of Syrian refugee while still reporting on how the weak rule of law and insufficient protection of female refugees are the primary reasons for GBV. Both reports neglect to address women’s roles and concerns in humanitarian services, justice, and DDR.