Latest news with #LebanonPolitics
Arab News
09-07-2025
- Politics
- Arab News
US envoy calls for change in Lebanese political culture in interview with LBCI Lebanon
BEIRUT: Lebanon's politicians have spent 60 years 'denying, detouring and deflecting,' the US special envoy Tom Barrack said in an interview broadcast on Wednesday. Barrack has been in Lebanon to talk with political leaders over Washington's proposals to disarm the powerful militant group Hezbollah. Asked whether the Lebanese politicians he has been dealing with were actually engaging with him or just buying time, the diplomat responded 'both.' 'The Lebanese political culture is deny, detour and deflect,' Barrack said. 'This is the way that it's been for 60 years, and this is the task we have in front of us. It has to change.' After meeting President Joseph Aoun on Monday, he reacted positively to the Lebanese government's response to a US plan to remove Hezbollah's weapons. In an interview with Lebanese broadcaster LBCI, Barrack said he believed the president, prime minister and the speaker of the house were being 'candid, honest, and forthright' with him. But he warned Lebanon's politicians that the region is changing and if the politicians didn't want to change as well 'just tell us, and we'll not interfere.' While he did not disclose the details of the US proposals, or the Lebanese response, Barrack said Lebanon's leadership had to be willing to take a risk. 'We need results from these leaders,' he said. Lebanon's politicians have long been accused of corruption and putting self-interest first ahead of the good of the nation and the Lebanese people. Public anger came to a head in 2019 with mass public protests against corruption and financial hardship. The Lebanese economy spiraled into a financial crisis with the country defaulting on its debt and the currency collapsing. Barrack, who is also Washington's ambassador to Turkiye and special envoy for Syria, said the US was offering Lebanon a helping hand rather than trying to interfere in its politics. 'We've only said one thing, if you want us to help you, we're here to usher, we're here to help. We're here to protect to the extent that we can,' he said. 'But we're not going to intervene in regime change. We're not going to intervene in politics. And if you don't want us, no problem, we'll go home. That's it.' Barrack said Hezbollah, which is viewed as a terrorist organization by the US and is also a political party with 13 MPs in Lebanon 'is a Lebanese problem, not a world problem.' 'We've already, from a political point of view, said it's a terrorist organization. They mess with us anywhere, just as the president (Trump) has established on a military basis, they're going to have a problem with us. How that gets solved within Lebanon is another issue … It's up to the Lebanese people.' Barrack said the disarmament of Hezbollah had always been based on a simple fact for President Donald Trump: 'One nation, one people, one army.' 'If that's the case, if that's what this political body chooses, then we will usher, will help, will influence, and will be that intermediary with all of the potential combatants or adversaries who are on your borders,' Barrack said. The diplomat dismissed media speculation that the US had set timelines for its proposals, but said while Trump had been extremely proactive on Lebanon, he would not wait long for progress. 'Nobody is going to stick around doing this until next May,' he said. 'I don't think there's ever been a president since Dwight Eisenhower who came out with such ferocity for Lebanon. On his own, he (Trump) has the courage, he has the dedication, he has the ability. What he doesn't have is patience. 'If Lebanon wants to just keep kicking this can down the road, they can keep kicking the can down the road, but we're not going to be here in May having this discussion.' During the near hour-long, wide-ranging interview, Barrack, whose grandparents emigrated from Lebanon to the US, everybody across Lebanon's many religions and sects was tired of war and discontent. 'If we have 19 different religions and 19 different communities and 19 different confessionals, there's one thing that's above that, and that's being Lebanese,' he said. The Trump administration is keen to support Lebanon and Aoun, who became president in January, as the country struggles to emerge from years of economic hardship, political turmoil and regional unrest. Hezbollah, which is backed by Iran, had become the most powerful military force in the country and a major political power, but was significantly weakened by an Israeli campaign against the group last year. Its weapons arsenal has remained an ongoing thorn in the side of US-Lebanon relations. Along with disarming Hezbollah, the US proposals presented to Lebanese officials by Barrack last month are thought to include economic reforms to help the country move forward.
LBCI
08-07-2025
- Politics
- LBCI
US envoy's cautious tone reflects Lebanon's mixed response to US proposal—The details
Report by Yazbek Wehbe, English adaptation by Akram Chehayeb The soft tone in U.S. envoy Tom Barrack's remarks stemmed from what he had heard from the Lebanese president and an initial reading of Lebanon's official response to the U.S. proposal. The U.S. Embassy in Beirut had already begun reviewing the response and forwarded it to the State Department and the National Security Council in Washington, even before Barrack presented it to U.S. President Donald Trump. The Lebanese response calls for a cessation of hostilities, a discussion on ensuring that weapons remain exclusively in the hands of the state, the gradual disarmament of armed groups, an end to the armed presence of all factions across Lebanon, and support for the army, including extending its authority throughout the country. Lebanon's top three leaders have approved the Lebanese paper, but Hezbollah, which was informed about it, has yet to give its final approval or rejection. However, some of the party's concerns and viewpoints were communicated by Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri to the U.S. envoy, including demands for guarantees backed by Washington, a commitment that Israel will not violate the agreement, and assurances to halt raids and assassinations and to withdraw from the areas it occupied last year. Sources further confirmed that Hezbollah did not give a pledge or agreement to hand over its weapons, nor did it reject it outright, and left the matter for an internal Lebanese discussion so as not to appear to have submitted to external dictates and pressures, whether Israeli or American, while stressing that it does not want war but will remain ready for defense in the event of escalation. The sources added that the party would have preferred to postpone the Lebanese response to the U.S. paper. However, the commitment of Lebanon's leaders and the government to respond by a specific date prevented this from happening. Even Speaker Berri informed those close to him that he does not prefer to bear the consequences of any agreement alone, as had happened in the cessation of hostilities agreement at the end of last November. The sources believe that Hezbollah is trying to gain time to secure the most significant percentage of guarantees about its future, hence the importance of what Barrack announced on Monday regarding the future political role of Hezbollah. The U.S. envoy, after receiving a briefing from General Rodolph Haykal on the army's missions in the south and the role it plays, also met with Samir Geagea, head of the Lebanese Forces Party, who said that collecting all illegal weapons, whether Palestinian or Lebanese, paves the way for the establishment of a "real state" in Lebanon. The U.S. envoy is expected to return to Beirut by the end of July. By then, Lebanese officials should have prepared a roadmap detailing when to start handing over weapons, implement reforms, and resolve border disputes with Syria.
Al Arabiya
07-07-2025
- Politics
- Al Arabiya
Tom Barrack's memo: A country afraid of its own sovereignty
There are moments in the life of a nation when silence speaks louder than words. Lebanon is living such a moment now. In the aftermath of escalating regional tensions and ongoing international efforts to redraw the security landscape of the Middle East, key Lebanese leaders have reportedly been engaged in high-level discussions to shape the country's response to recent diplomatic overtures – chief among them, a memo by US Special Envoy Tom Barrack addressing Lebanon's sovereignty, regional role, and long-delayed reforms. Barrack, who is expected in Beirut soon, will quickly learn that the Lebanese elite are beyond incorrigible. For all the latest headlines, follow our Google News channel online or via the app. The Lebanese state is dragging its feet in replying to – and more importantly, implementing –Barrack's memo, stalling behind closed-door consultations and awaiting 'consensus,' while the region and the world demand clarity. This delay is not strategic; it is symptomatic of a leadership unwilling to confront the basic questions of national identity, legitimacy, and power. Behind the closed doors of the presidential palace and the murmurings of Beirut's political salons, the mood is not one of bold recalibration. It is one of hesitation, delay, and carefully measured evasion. Lebanon appears once again poised to let history move past it, rather than risk stepping into its own future. At the heart of the international initiative lies a simple but foundational idea: that Lebanon must reclaim the exclusive right to use force within its borders. In essence, that weapons should rest in the hands of the state alone. In almost any functioning democracy, this would be an uncontroversial premise. But in Lebanon, the issue remains taboo, bound tightly to the question of Hezbollah and the legacy of the so-called 'resistance.' Rather than seizing this as an opportunity to launch a national conversation – on terms that Lebanon itself defines – its leadership appears determined to tread water. The idea of integrating all weapons under a national defense strategy is once again being floated. Yet this strategy remains hypothetical, a perennial placeholder that has never materialized – and never will – under current power structures. The state keeps invoking dialogue with Hezbollah – an internationally designated terrorist entity – not as a prelude to decisions, but as a substitute for them. One of the most consistent tactics of Lebanese officialdom is to turn every proposal into a chicken-and-egg scenario. The ongoing debate over the Barrack memo is a clear case in point. No disarmament without Israeli withdrawals. No reform without international guarantees. No diplomacy without regional consensus. On their own, these positions are not unreasonable – but when deployed reflexively, they become tools of paralysis. By insisting that every internal reform be predicated on external moves – especially from Israel – Lebanon ensures that it will always be responding, never initiating. This is not strategic leverage. It is learned helplessness, dressed up as negotiation. Meanwhile, the narrative that Lebanon is merely a passive victim of Israeli aggression is losing its persuasive power. The international community is less concerned today with adjudicating blame than with charting a path out of perpetual instability. Lebanon's leaders seem unable – or unwilling – to offer one. What may be most troubling in the current moment is the unspoken but palpable understanding that no serious move will be taken without Hezbollah's approval. Not integration into state structures, not decisions on war and peace, not even the framing of a national position. This is not the behavior of a sovereign republic – it is a power-sharing arrangement gone metastatic. Hezbollah continues to occupy a dual role: both within the state and above it. A political party in parliament, a militia with regional reach, and a diplomatic gatekeeper all in one. While the party signals tactical flexibility – expressing openness to dialogue and disinterest in fresh conflict – it still wields the ultimate veto over national decisions. This veto manifests itself in the person of the omnipresent Speaker of Parliament, Nabih Berri, who uses his position to leverage Hezbollah's weapons for further political gain, even at the expense of the Lebanese constitution. Let us be clear: Hezbollah no longer insists on keeping its arms solely to fight Israel. That pretext has worn thin. Its real aim is internal – preserving its strategic dominance over the Lebanese state. The gun is no longer aimed across the border. It is pointed inward, at the idea of statehood itself. This is neither accountability nor compromise. It is a state outsourced to one of its own components. Even tentative international proposals reportedly on the table – such as limited Israeli withdrawals in exchange for modest Lebanese gestures on the arms issue – are treated with extreme caution. Rather than use such gestures as openings for creative diplomacy, the instinct is to consult, defer, and wait. The fear of internal rupture is so great that the status quo becomes the only policy. This is not strategic ambiguity. It is strategic surrender. Lebanon's predicament is not new. For years, the country has survived by managing contradictions rather than resolving them – chief among them, allowing an Iranian-sponsored militia to use and abuse Lebanon, its people, and its economy. But that model is no longer sustainable. With regional alignments shifting, economic lifelines drying up, and public confidence near collapse, Lebanon cannot afford to postpone the fundamentals of statehood. It must reclaim its sovereignty by fully disarming Hezbollah and implementing UNSCR 1701. The international community is not demanding perfection. But it is demanding clarity, seriousness, and a credible pathway to stability. Lebanon owes itself – and its citizens – more than another round of circular deliberations hidden behind vague talk of consensus. What Lebanon needs now is not another conference, nor another draft proposal shuffled between factions. It needs political courage. It needs leadership that can define national interest independent of sectarian vetoes or foreign patrons. It needs to stop waiting for the region to settle before settling its own house. The question is simple, if painful: Does Lebanon wish to be a state among states, or a buffer zone between stronger actors? Until it finds the will to answer that honestly, it will remain trapped in its tragic in-betweenness – governed by negotiations it doesn't lead, haunted by choices it refuses to make.
LBCI
07-07-2025
- Politics
- LBCI
Envoy Tom Barrack arrives in Beirut to receive Lebanon's official response to US proposal
U.S. envoy Tom Barrack arrived in Beirut, where he is expected to receive Lebanon's official response to a proposal he submitted as part of ongoing diplomatic efforts.
LBCI
01-07-2025
- Business
- LBCI
Tense session: Lebanese Parliament passes key loan agreements and military grants
Report by Yazbek Wehbe, English adaptation by Yasmine Jaroudi Lebanon's Parliament resumed its legislative session on Tuesday under strained conditions after failing to secure quorum the previous evening. Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri opened the session at 11:50 a.m. with only 63 lawmakers present, falling short of the required threshold for voting. It took an additional 15 minutes and direct calls from Berri's aides to MPs before the necessary quorum was secured. The main blocs boycotting the session included members of the Lebanese Forces, the Kataeb Party, parts of the Change and Renewal Blocs, segments of the Moderation Bloc, and several independent MPs. Despite the political divisions, Parliament proceeded to approve several critical measures. Following Monday's approval of a $250 million World Bank loan to support Lebanon's struggling energy sector, lawmakers on Tuesday ratified a second World Bank loan agreement worth $200 million aimed at economic recovery. Domestically, the session saw Parliament endorse monthly grants of LBP 14 million for active military personnel and LBP 12 million for military retirees. Finance Minister Yassine Jaber pledged to study the feasibility of extending similar grants to retired civil servants, diplomats, and public school teachers. Sources estimate the total cost of the new grants for military personnel, retirees, judges, and university support funds at around LBP 19 trillion. Parliament also discussed the ongoing push for fair salary adjustments across the public sector. The debate over electoral law amendments resurfaced during the session, particularly concerning whether Lebanese expatriates should vote within their original electoral districts. MP Ali Fayad argued that some political factions are using the expatriate vote as a tool to invite foreign pressure on internal Lebanese affairs. Meanwhile, Deputy Speaker Elias Bou Saab criticized lawmakers who boycotted the session. Among the other significant pieces of legislation passed was a law granting municipalities greater authority to increase service fees, enabling them to fund development projects and operations better. The issue of parliamentary quorum is expected to persist in future sessions if the opposition maintains its boycott strategy. However, indications suggest they may be exploring alternative avenues to achieve their political objectives.
