Hayam Al-Qusseify wrote in the news:
Three positions were reached by the official authorities within a few days, issued by the United States of America, the Gulf states and France, and left behind by European countries concerned with the Lebanese situation. Washington has reported through its diplomatic circles in Beirut and Washington that there is no new US decision regarding Lebanon. The US administration previously informed the same thing a while ago, and there has been no change to it, and it will not back down from its hard-line stance towards Hezbollah, and that talk of an immediate calm is not in place, but there is upward pressure related to the party.
The question about the reflection of this position on the Lebanese people as a whole is only met with a reaffirmation of the position against Hezbollah and that the alternative is a new government independent of all political forces. In parallel, the Gulf stance came not confined to what Kuwait and Qatar expressed regarding financial assistance, and before them Saudi Arabia. Rather, it crystallized more clearly in the sense that any Gulf initiative, whatever its form and size, can only be done in coordination with Washington. Currently, the American position is known, and there is no need for these countries to even ask Washington about the possibility of supporting Lebanon. Accordingly, there will be no help – whether Lebanon was promised or not – as long as those responsible for its file in the State Department specifically did not give any green light. It is surprising that Lebanon goes to these countries to seek help, while it knows exactly the true position of the United States and the Gulf. As for the French position, which has become known, it was aggravated by the form of the visit of Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Laudrian to Beirut. The main fact, after France was briefed about the official positions of Saudi Arabia, and then to Qatar and Kuwait, that any French move is no longer urgent. In addition to the foregoing, the disengagement that was reliable between Washington and Hezbollah did not take place, despite the high level of talk about its possibilities. Ludryan’s visit turns into a stop on a regional tour, aimed at informing officials in Beirut, face to face, of what he had previously said publicly and what was also conveyed by French President Emmanuel Macron, and the content of the international and Arab atmosphere towards Lebanon.
The irony in all of the above is that the three “communications” separately, in Lebanon on an official level, were met with disregard, not in the context of rejecting these messages, even though Lebanon was the one who sought to seek help from these countries, but rather in order to reduce their severity. . Although for the first time this clarity, and in a short period of time, decisive positions emerge from the current crisis. However, the official references did not deal with it on the level of its seriousness and seriousness, amid a bet that it is temporary, and that there are those who will not allow the collapse of the Lebanese situation and harm its stability. And this matter is even generalized to some political forces that are trying to catch the crisis from the place that suits them, turning it into an occasion for kidia and settling accounts in front of Arab and Western diplomatic circles for purely local ends, without taking into account that real changes have occurred in the policy of these countries in this strict manner, Not only in relation to Hezbollah, such as the Riyadh and Washington positions, but also in the financial and economic issue and corruption rampant in state institutions and holding all political forces accountable for what the political and financial situation has reached. For an official Lebanon, era and government (and here it is not a matter of Hezbollah’s approach to these messages), he insists on turning a blind eye to all the political data responsible for the monetary and economic crisis, knowing that its “key is political” first and foremost, and he insists on dealing with it both in international communications. Or Arab, as if it is just a local financial crisis that is handled by some financial arrangements from this or that country, and through donations and deposits, it will save the situation, without any consideration of the possibilities these countries know about the evaporation of these aid, as its predecessors evaporated, as well as the reality of the financial and economic crisis that needs Years to be addressed even if international political cover is available.
The internal crisis management did not appear before the concerned diplomatic and international circles to be on the level of the assumption of poverty and hunger that afflicts Lebanese society. Even dealing with the IMF negotiations is as if it is communicating with one of the many local funds. Note that when the IMF talks about numbers and public policy, it does not only do it on its own, but that its successor is an international group that has its say in politics before any financial decision. The problem is that the ruling still deals with international messages with the same importance that it deals with the loss of Lebanese money, medicines, health and dignity.