An Open Letter to Mr. Tom Barrack
Dear Mr. Barrack,
I followed with great attention your recent interview, in which you suggested that negotiations should be conducted directly with Hezbollah on the grounds that it is the party that effectively holds decision-making power. This brought to mind a conversation we had during your most recent visit to Lebanon, when we discussed the same issue from much the same perspective.
At the outset, I would like to thank you for your enduring interest in Lebanon and your affection for the country. This prompts me to reiterate what I previously conveyed to you directly: the reality in Lebanon is that there is a legitimate, elected authority, and it alone has the right to make decisions on behalf of the Lebanese state and the Lebanese people, irrespective of what the positions and actions of forces imposed on the ground may suggest.
Lebanon has a Parliament legitimately and democratically elected by the Lebanese people. That Parliament elected Joseph Aoun President of the Republic with a majority approaching one hundred votes, and it has twice granted confidence to the government of Prime Minister Nawaf Salam in less than two years. Lebanon, therefore, is not a state without authority or institutions. Rather, it is a state with a legitimate authority and elected constitutional institutions, and they alone are vested with the power to make decisions on its behalf.
Accordingly, any solution must proceed through the Lebanese state and its legitimate institutions, which express the will of the Lebanese people. It must not come through granting parallel legitimacy to a party that rejects the decisions of the state, acts in defiance of the Constitution, possesses Iranian-supplied weapons that have inflicted grave damage on Lebanon, and demonstrates every day that its ultimate point of reference is Iran—as you yourself have stated—while keeping the country as an arena for Iranian influence. Legitimacy is not acquired through the possession of unlawful arms, nor through the ability to obstruct government decisions. Rather, it derives from the constitutional institutions that represent all Lebanese citizens.
As for your statement that Hezbollah is stronger than the Lebanese Armed Forces, it suggests that your assessment of the realities on the ground in Lebanon may still be based on circumstances that have changed since this argument was previously presented to you. The Lebanese Armed Forces, when backed by the full judicial, security, and administrative apparatus of the state, have been and remain stronger than Hezbollah. What they previously lacked was the necessary political decision, which is now in place, in addition to the international support they enjoy and the backing of a broad segment of the Lebanese people. This is not a matter of salary levels or material resources, but rather of commitment, discipline, and military professionalism.
Moreover, the latest war—which Hezbollah brought upon Lebanon and upon itself—together with the isolation facing both Hezbollah and Iran, has left the organization at one of its weakest points. This is compounded by mounting judicial and financial pressure, both internationally and domestically, which is increasingly constraining its operational capabilities.
In addition, the United States itself recently renewed its designation of Hezbollah as a terrorist organization linked to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and imposed sanctions on individuals accused of helping channel funds to Hezbollah through Turkey. How, then, can the Lebanese state be asked to sit at the same table with an organization that rejects its decisions and maintains weapons outside its institutions, while the official U.S. position and designation treat Hezbollah as a terrorist organization linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps?
Mr. Barrack,
With full respect for your views and for the pragmatism that characterizes your approach to commercial and political dealings, and with due appreciation for the importance of the practical, dialogue-based approaches you advocate, Lebanon, at this stage and after the heavy price it has paid, does not need additional forms of legitimacy created outside its constitutional order. Nor does it need negotiating platforms that place unlawful arms on a footing parallel to that of the state.
At this stage, the logic of state authority and the rule of law must take precedence over the logic of pragmatism, particularly after long years of dialogue and incentives that were used to buy time and that contributed significantly, over decades, to weakening a number of states across the Middle East, foremost among them Lebanon.
What Lebanon needs today is the implementation of state decisions, support for its legitimate institutions, and the empowerment of the Lebanese Armed Forces to extend the sovereignty of the state over the entirety of Lebanese territory. Confidence will not be restored, nor will the doors to investment reopen, until the state is genuinely present and effective, with no competing authority, and until the rule of law prevails without conferring any parallel legitimacy upon those who challenge the legitimacy of the state or defy its decisions.
With my warmest regards and highest respect,
Ghassan Hasbani
Former Deputy Prime Minister
Member of the Lebanese Parliament.