The collapse of a dilapidated building in Tripoli on the 24th of January was a deeply revealing, harrowing tragedy. It crumbled over its residents, who chose to remain in their homes because the alternative was life on the streets after those supposed to protect them neglected their most basic duty. Equally shocking was the helplessness on display throughout that day. The victims could not be retrieved, creating a vivid image of institutional paralysis. With the building’s collapse, broad expectations that the emergence of new authorities would turn the page on misery and suffering also collapsed.
The foremost challenge, one year into President Joseph Aoun’s term, remains saving Lebanese lives and averting the existential threat posed by occupation. Another crucial challenge is achieving a measure of justice after decades of “impunity,” thereby providing a measure of reassurance to citizens. It has become exceedingly difficult to claim that the new top brass presents a contrast with the corrupt establishment that had led the country to hell by covering for the transgressions of “state-within-a-state” and standing idly by as Hezbollah dragged Lebanon into the calamitous “support war.”
The President’s slogan of “sovereignty, reform, and peace” was followed by the Prime Minister’s assertion that “for the first time since 1969, the Lebanese state alone has operational control south of the Litani.” From Paris, the latter then stressed that: “If security and safety are not available, investments will not come; and if reform in the banking sector does not take place, investments will not come either.” There is, however, a visible chasm between rhetoric and practice, between the authorities’ performance over the past year and the president’s inaugural speech and the ministerial statement.
Four hundred and twenty-seven days after the ceasefire agreement (which had been negotiated by the duo of Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri and Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem, and concluded by Najib Mikati’s government) merely reiterating the achievements made south of the Litani is not enough. Lebanon does not have the luxury of time, and full disarmament could alter the terms imposed by the victor, after there had been references to the return of the displaced and the release of prisoners, while its “right” to permanently violate the country is being imposed.
That happened before the fall of the Syrian regime, when this militia’s supply lines were still operational. It is no longer acceptable to show laxity in the face of the “party’s” refusal to comply with an agreement it had endorsed. It now announces its refusal to disarm north of the Litani despite its withdrawal from the south, effectively giving up on its claims to fighting the Israeli enemy. Why does Hezbollah insist on retaining weapons while it has failed to do anything in response to the daily attacks on its militants? Do the authorities not have a duty to take stringent action to reassure citizens and protect them by taking control of the cantons protected by these weapons and ending the chokehold that has been imposed on the Shiite community's social fabric for the sake of Iran’s agenda?
Lebanon’s sovereignty is being undermined, and not only through Israel’s occupation of the five points and Israel’s no-man’s-land along the edges of devastated towns. The problem is not limited to military issues or the presence of non-state actors. The neglect of accountability and the suspension of justice are also undermining Lebanon’s sovereignty as economic and social reform remains elusive. The state has been made incapable of acting on its rhetoric through tangible steps. Providing “security and safety” presupposes, alongside the urgent task of disarmament, weakening the corrupt establishment's grip on the economic, financial, administrative, and cultural institutions, using them to build extra-state loyalties. The state must become the sole reference for legitimacy, trust, and belonging- that is a crucial step toward achieving national sovereignty.
The country had embraced illusions: “Israel is weaker than a spider’s web” and “I bring you the news of victory-” victory for whom? The outcome was a free fall. The catastrophic “support” war destroyed Hezbollah’s delusions about its strength and imposed a devastating defeat on the country. Today, the Lebanese are being asked to coexist with new narratives that market new illusions using refined language.
In general, high-level state appointments have not deviated from the spoil-sharing formula of the past, which does not intersect with the needs of the country and its people at any point. The collapse has not been halted by the introduction of a few new faces; it is deepening. Every day without accountability erodes trust further and places additional burdens on the people. The “audit” has become the key to financial and reforms and must encompass the banking sector as well as the dungeons of state corruption. To do anything else is to insist on gambling with the country’s future.
Salam’s disclosure of the IMF’s reservations regarding the draft “financial gap law” should mean terminating the project. Prioritizing justice must replace the deliberate substitution of accountability with the contrived notion of a “gap” to protect perpetrators. The IMF’s remarks cast doubt on the project’s foundations and on the country’s capacity to implement it. The IMF response concludes with a request to add a clause allowing for the monetization of gold in the event that repayment proves impossible. That amounts to denying Lebanon any chance at recovery and guaranteeing that rights will not be reclaimed so long as this system remains in place.
At this juncture, becoming even more reliant on indirect taxation is catastrophic. Cutting pensions after the illegal haircut on deposits is no solution either. The country will not move forward by revamping corrupt figures and defendants accused of liability in the Beirut port blast. Salvation can only come from addressing the root causes that precipitated the tyranny of weapons and led to collapse and defeat
