Amidst two contrasting scenes - Lebanon's Central Bank's governance and the mission of French envoy Jean-Yves Le Drian - the political forces do not seem to grasp that the country is in the midst of a storm. The discussions in the Quintet Committee go beyond concluding France's initiative, extending into talks about Lebanon's future.
This article was originally published in and translated from the Lebanese newspaper Al-Akhbar.
The best representation of Lebanon's ongoing collapse is evident in how the political forces have dealt with the Central Bank's governance issue. At the same time, French envoy Le Drian continued his mission in Beirut. His visit was not to seek an immediate resolution to the lingering presidential crisis but to extend hope for a breakthrough in the coming months.
Comparing both scenarios reveals the political forces' superiority lies in their failure to act based on the information and warnings they receive regarding Lebanon's future.
The discussions held within the Quintet meeting in Doha, exploring Lebanon's fate, the future of its system, and the stringent determination of the next president's qualifications, along with the insistence on the Taif Agreement as Lebanon's sole constitution, are seen by Saudi Arabia as closing the door to any negotiations regarding Lebanon's system.
This reflects the gravity of the debates amid serious concerns about Lebanon's future course.
Le Drian's visit was an attempt to maintain a fragile line of communication after clear messages were conveyed, not just through official statements from Doha. The problem with the political forces is that they knew in advance that Le Drian did not bring any practical executive measures with a clear plan. They did not take the French transformation and Arab involvement in the crisis seriously.
Instead, they treated his visit with "social compliments, images, and leaks," disregarding that his visit without an agenda signifies Lebanon being further embroiled in the storm.
Moreover, they dealt with the Doha discussions, which will have repercussions on Lebanon for months to come, merely as an official statement without considering its broader implications.
The second problem is that placing the blame on France alone for the confusion of the past months reflects part of the overall scene.
During his visit to Beirut after the Beirut Port explosion, French President Emmanuel Macron mentioned that he could not say Lebanese officials do not exist; instead, the Lebanese people elected them, and thus, France cannot take over Lebanon's sovereignty.
Some Arab and Western capitals have been betting on the possibility of "Lebanizing" the situation even before President Michel Aoun's term ended. However, the opportunity now seems almost impossible, as indicated by discussions in the Doha meeting.
Perhaps dealing with the end of the term of the Central Bank governor, once again, constituted before these capitals a model on how to manage the escalating crises, which could later affect the position of the army command, as two pivotal positions in Lebanon's public, financial, and security policies.
It reversed a situation similar to the continued performance of political forces in the last years of crisis since October 17, 2019.
Discussions about the fate of the Central Bank's governance seemed to be conducted as if there were an established state, with the president present at the Baabda Palace and political life continuing with daily routine.
According to this criterion, it could be said that the Christian forces erred in not utilizing the opportunity to appoint a new governor, even if it meant a constitutional violation by describing the caretaker government as ineligible to make appointments.
However, all these essential elements were unavailable, as the government, beyond being a caretaker government, emerged from the previous parliament, not the current one, despite its performance being recorded.
Nevertheless, the political forces elevated the Central Bank's governance issue to a sensitive and delicate place, engaging in political maneuvers, balancing acts, and tricks, passing the "hot potato" from one side to another.
The expiration date of the governor's term was not a sudden revelation, just as President Aoun's term did not come as a surprise. Yet, the political forces dealt with both events similarly.
What distinguished the issue of the governorship is that the bet on an extension persisted until the last moment, were it not for the clear messages from the United States and some European countries opposing an extension.
However, on the other hand, some leaders easily engaged in a political game, circulating names and setting a date for the cabinet session, a maneuver that the opponents to the appointment did not take up, nor did its supporters.
The focus is not solely on the type of maneuver and its futile outcome, as much as it places before the states working to frame a rescue plan for Lebanon a sample of the levity with which this sensitive issue was dealt.
Furthermore, these forces dealt with the issue within a narrow political framework, in terms of maneuvers between the Free Patriotic Movement and Hezbollah and its allies against the forces that supported the appointment and the continuation of the policy of maneuver until the last minute.
All of this is not just a purely local matter, as the five capitals closely observe what is happening, raising a thousand questions about the readiness of these forces to face similar challenges. At the same time, Lebanon's officials persist in evading responsibility despite all the warnings they receive.