Aug. 26, 2020 | 09:05 AM
A sudden burst of interest in Lebanon
Riad Tabbarah
The wide emotional response to the horrible explosion that
took place on Aug. 4 in the port of Beirut was interpreted, by many Lebanese,
as evidence that the presumed informal economic siege, placed on Lebanon by the
international community since the formation of the Hezbollah-dominated
government last January, has been lifted. What more proof does one need, it is
said, than the rapid succession of high level European and American dignitaries
visiting the country, including the president of France, Emmanuel Macron,
presumably on behalf of the European community, and American undersecretary of
state, David Hale, each spending several days in the country? According to this
view, economic assistance to the near-collapsed economy of Lebanon will soon
follow.
This is what many Lebanese wish is happening. But reality,
unfortunately, is somewhere else. Lebanon has been under pressure, for many
years, to undertake major political and fiscal reform in order to qualify for
assistance from the international community. These demands have been met
locally with a solid wall of corruption. The substance of the message delivered
by the stream of high-level envoys remains substantively unchanged.
The present generous assistance is solely humanitarian and
will go either to the Lebanese Army or to organizations of the civil society,
because donors have no trust in the country’s political class. The long-awaited
economic and fiscal assistance is available, as in the past, only when the
necessary reforms are undertaken, and a credible government is formed to
implement them.
What changed, besides the bluntness of the message
regarding the political corruption in the country, are the high levels of the
visitors and the intensity of their visits. Macron’s visit came on Aug. 6, two
days after the explosion, (his foreign minister, Jean-Yves Le Drian, had been
in Beirut some two weeks earlier and made forceful statements for reform).
Macron’s schedule of meetings included a walk in one of the ruined streets of
Beirut where he promised the people that humanitarian assistance will go
directly to them, not through an untrustworthy government. He called for an
expanded list of reforms, reaching all the way to “a new political order,” and
promised to come back early September to check on progress. Hale, on the other
hand, spent most of his time in meetings with representatives of civil society,
politicians outside government and plain people in the streets of Beirut. He
openly and repeatedly expressed no confidence in the government. He will be
soon followed by the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs,
David Schenker. In the meantime, the U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon, Elizabeth
Richard, and ambassadors of Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states have been
unusually active transmitting the same message: the need for reform and an end
to corruption.
This hyperactivity of foreign diplomacy is obviously
different from past diplomatic activities. It is no more to deliver advice or
warning. It is to deliver an ultimatum. This is raw political pressure.
But why are Europe, America and their allies in the region
so interested in saving Lebanon? How far will they go in this rescue operation?
France has of course a long relationship with Lebanon. It
basically created “Greater Lebanon” a hundred years ago and considered it as
its foothold in the region. It is the most Francophone country in the Middle
East, a fact that is particularly cherished by the French, and many dual
Lebanese citizens are French. But the more immediate interest of France is to
keep the million and a half Syrian refugees residing in Lebanon in place until
their return to Syria, and to avoid a mass flight to Europe, as happened a few years
ago. A collapse of the Lebanese economy that may well be followed by social
unrest or chaos would certainly make such a flight more possible, even likely.
The United States has also interest in keeping Lebanon
stable. In addition to the painful experience it had during the previous chaos
during Lebanon’s Civil War (blowing of the US Embassy, the loss of more than
250 American military personnel to a truck bomb), America has at least two
principal worries regarding a potential social collapse of Lebanon: The
resurgence of Daesh (ISIS) in the north of the country and the instability in
the south that may draw Israel into a war. Using this opportunity to draw the
maritime borders between Lebanon and Israel would be the icing on the cake.
The interest of France and the United States is thus
limited to preventing Lebanon from falling into the abyss. Helping the Lebanese
achieve economic development and prosperity, as many Lebanese expected, as a
result of the outpour of sympathy, is not on the menu. But even this modest
goal may prove difficult to achieve in the face of the impregnable wall of
political corruption in the country.
Macron realized early that France does not have the
necessary weapons to pierce this wall. Only America has. He, therefore,
personally called President Donald Trump and invited him to participate in the
virtual meeting that he organized after he returned from his visit to Lebanon.
He finally succeeded in bringing the United States more directly into this
rescue effort, with the visit of David Hale to Lebanon as a first step.
Yes. Only America has the effective weapons to prod the
Lebanese political elite to undertake a minimum of reform that would insure the
country’s survival. Only America can impose or intensify painful economic
sanctions and only it has the ultimate weapon that most Lebanese politicians
fear: to be placed on the blacklist, either because of corruption under the
Magnitsky Act or for other reasons, which implies confiscation of wealth
outside Lebanon, limiting freedom of travel and other painful punishment.
But will the United States go this far? Will it use the
arsenal at its disposal? We will find out shortly.
Riad Tabbarah is a former ambassador
of Lebanon in the United States.
