Lebanon cabinet to meet again on Hezbollah disarmament
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
33 minutes ago
- Arab News
US guarantees key to disarming Hezbollah
The Lebanese government on Thursday made a landmark decision, committing to the disarmament of Hezbollah by the end of the year. It approved the 'goals' of US envoy Tom Barrack's paper on 'strengthening' the ceasefire agreement between Lebanon and Israel. The government stated that the army will present an action plan by the end of August. Hezbollah was appalled by the decision. Mohammed Raad, a Hezbollah member of parliament, said that the group would rather die than surrender its arms. He added that the group's arms are its honor. Hezbollah sent protesters to the streets in an attempt to put pressure on the government. However, they were quickly dispersed by the army. Lebanon is required to abide by international law and by UN Security Council Resolution 1701. The US is pressuring Lebanon to do so. And it should abide by international law, there is no question about it. However, when it comes to the Israeli side of the equation, Barrack's paper only promises that the US will 'facilitate' mediation with Israel over its withdrawal from the 'five points' inside Lebanon and ceasing hostilities. Barrack was very clear when the Lebanese asked him whether Israel would withdraw and stop its raids on Lebanon if Hezbollah were to disarm: he said that there are no guarantees. Basically, Lebanon should abide by international law, while Israel can go by the law of the jungle. Israel constantly emphasizes its right to 'self-defense,' which is a very elastic concept. Any aggression can be justified as self-defense or a preemptive strike. The Lebanese army has a very difficult task. The Americans are making it even harder. It is an open secret that the US is biased toward Israel for many reasons. However, if the US really wants the Lebanese state and the Lebanese army to succeed in disarming Hezbollah, it should empower them. It should at least show that it is being an honest broker. It should show that it can pressure Israel. It should show that both parties must abide by international law. If the US really wants the Lebanese state and the Lebanese army to succeed in disarming Hezbollah, it should empower them Dr. Dania Koleilat Khatib Israel has been living by the law of the jungle since its inception. It has been able to do so because of US and Western complicity. According to advocacy group If Americans Knew, Israel is the target of at least 78 UN resolutions. But Israel violates international law every day under the guise of self-defense and anyone who points a finger at its misdeeds is immediately labeled as antisemitic. The question is: until when? The Lebanese case is only one small example of how Israel receives preferential treatment in international affairs. This preferential treatment is secured by the world's major superpower, the US. However, it reduces the credibility of the US as an honest broker. Maybe the Americans do not care because the world needs them and they can impose their will on whoever they want. However, this attitude creates problems. What if the Lebanese army uses coercion and disarms Hezbollah, which will probably result in internal unrest, and Israel does not withdraw? This would reinforce the group's narrative and give it a new boost. This would revive the idea of resistance. If this idea is revived, then the movement will be revived. However, Israel has the luxury of only looking at its own side of the story because it has the US to back it up whenever needed. The US could make the task of the Lebanese state and army much easier by giving guarantees that Israel would withdraw and cease hostilities. The hostilities are mainly targeting Hezbollah operatives and officials. As long as the US does not give such guarantees, Hezbollah will not feel secure enough to willingly disarm. Israel has the luxury of only looking at its own side of the story because it has the US to back it up whenever needed Dr. Dania Koleilat Khatib Hezbollah is convincing its audience that this is an existential issue. This is why Raad said that they would rather die than surrender their arms. The state may have taken the decision to disarm Hezbollah, but this does not mean the implementation will be easy or seamless. The protests that followed the decision could be renewed and could become violent. But all this could be avoided if the US showed that both parties must abide by international law, while guaranteeing that Israel will withdraw and cease hostilities. If not treated carefully, this could lead to a clash between Hezbollah and the army. Of course, Hezbollah is weak now but it still — along with the Amal Movement — represents the majority of the country's Shiite population. Hence, the group cannot be discounted. Of course, a state cannot thrive with the existence of an armed militia. This is a fact. The aim is for Hezbollah to surrender its arms and become a political party. However, for this to happen, the US cannot apply the double standard of Lebanon having to abide by international law while Israel ignores it. This will only boost Hezbollah's narrative and increase the sense of insecurity among the Shiite community. It could lead to clashes between the group and the army, as well as the Shiites and the rest of the Lebanese. Hence, for the sake of peace and stability, the US should act wisely and offer the Lebanese the guarantee that, if Hezbollah disarms, Israel will withdraw and stop targeting Lebanon. • Dr. Dania Koleilat Khatib is a specialist in US-Arab relations with a focus on lobbying. She is co-founder of the Research Center for Cooperation and Peace Building, a Lebanese nongovernmental organization focused on Track II.
Arab News
33 minutes ago
- Arab News
Saudi, UK foreign ministers discuss Gaza crisis
RIYADH: Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan spoke on the phone with his UK counterpart David Lammy on Sunday, the Saudi Press Agency reported. The parties discussed developments in the Gaza Strip, the need to stop Israeli attacks and violations, and how to end the humanitarian catastrophe suffered by the residents of the enclave, the SPA added. The phone call came on the same day as a UN Security Council meeting on the Gaza crisis, which had been requested by the UK and other countries. During the meeting, the UK, which was joined by Denmark, France, Greece and Slovenia, urged Israel to reverse its recent decision to expand military operations in Gaza, warning it would deepen Palestinian suffering, worsen the humanitarian crisis and endanger hostages. The UK's representative at the meeting, James Kariuki, said the move would not secure the release of hostages held by Hamas since the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks, and reiterated calls for their unconditional release. He stressed that Hamas must disarm and play no role in Gaza's governance, which should involve the Palestinian Authority. He also urged Israel to lift restrictions on aid, open all land routes for essential supplies, and allow humanitarian agencies to operate freely. Kariuki also highlighted a further $11.4 million provided by the UK for humanitarian funding for Gaza. He called on both sides to engage in negotiations in good faith toward a ceasefire and a two-state solution, which he added was the only path to lasting peace.
Arab News
33 minutes ago
- Arab News
The great corridor conundrum
It is a truth universally acknowledged — or at least universally marketed — that the Middle East is once again poised to be the beating heart of global commerce. Enter the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor, known as IMEC, a vision unveiled in September 2023 with the flourish of a G20 communique and the optimism of a startup pitch deck. India, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, the EU, France, Italy, Germany and the US all signed on, proclaiming IMEC not just as a trade route but as proof that geography in the 21st century can still be redrawn. The idea is seductive: a twin corridor network, one stretching from India to the Arabian Gulf, the other from the Gulf to Europe, sewn together by ports, railways and digital cables. In theory, the scheme could shave eight to 10 days off shipping times compared to the Suez route, reduce freight costs and serve as a 'values-based' counterweight to China's Belt and Road Initiative. In practice, however, bold lines on a map are the easy part; turning them into steel, concrete and functional customs regimes is where so many grand visions are lost. Early cost estimates place IMEC's price tag between $20 billion and $30 billion, a figure almost certain to rise once engineering, land acquisition and security needs are taken into account. The project began as an Indian initiative, later embraced by the EU and Saudi Arabia. Yet, unlike the Belt and Road Initiative or the International North-South Transport Corridor, India has not set up a dedicated implementing body, nor has it committed actual funding. That omission is more than a bureaucratic footnote: without clear governance and committed capital, the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor risks becoming a PowerPoint concept rather than a functioning trade artery. Financing will almost certainly rely on India-EU partnerships, with Saudi Arabia and the US playing indispensable roles. Washington's stance is broadly positive, though it views IMEC through the lens of a larger strategic agenda tied to the Abraham Accords. For India, the calculus is more complex. A faster, more reliable route to Europe could boost exports, yet New Delhi's domestic infrastructure ambitions — from high-speed rail to renewable power grids — already stretch fiscal resources. Adding to the equation, President Donald Trump's recently announced 50 percent tariffs on certain Indian exports has introduced a strategic wrinkle: can a corridor partly championed by Washington truly offset the economic sting of US protectionism? The new corridor's backers frame it as a cleaner, more transparent alternative, but politics and geography are not easily tamed Dr. John Sfakianakis The IMEC plan enters a crowded field. The Belt and Road Initiative, since its launch in 2013, has channeled an estimated $1 trillion into more than 150 countries, financing everything from deep-water ports in Pakistan to railways in East Africa. The International North-South Transport Corridor is already moving goods across Eurasia and the Suez Canal — IMEC's implicit rival — still handles more than 12 percent of global trade and is investing heavily in capacity upgrades. The new corridor's backers frame it as a cleaner, more transparent alternative, but politics and geography are not easily tamed. European shippers may think twice if tensions with Iran escalate. India's commitment could waver if EU carbon tariffs trigger a deeper trade rift. For Greece, IMEC presents a more parochial contest: who gets to be the European gateway? The port of Piraeus is the obvious candidate, but it is majority-owned by a Chinese company, an awkward fact for a project marketed as a hedge against Beijing's influence. Thessaloniki might offer an alternative, yet both ports face the same structural flaw — an underdeveloped railway network with poor links to the Balkans and beyond. In the hard reality of freight logistics, ports are only as useful as the railways that feed them. Without a robust and interconnected backbone, the dream of containers rolling smoothly from Mumbai to Munich will remain stubbornly out of reach. Security risks loom just as large. The corridor skirts maritime zones where Iran has flexed its naval muscles more than once, while the overland legs could be vulnerable to cyberattacks, drone strikes and political unrest. The recent military conflicts in the Middle East have already slowed planning for the corridor, effectively 'freezing' parts of its development. The Red Sea's recent spate of security incidents has shown how quickly global supply chains can be thrown off course by a single attack. The Belt and Road Initiative has learned to build redundancy into its networks — alternative ports, backup lines, diversified shipping lanes — and IMEC will need to do the same if it hopes to withstand inevitable shocks. The economic logic is also not as clear-cut as its boosters suggest. Rail freight from India to Europe might be faster than sea, but it is more expensive — often 30 percent to 50 percent higher per container — and speed alone may not convince shippers to absorb the cost premium. Digital and energy links, another selling point of IMEC, may produce returns sooner, but they lack the visual and political symbolism of a freight train gliding across the desert. Clear governance structures, dependable funding and disciplined execution are what will make or break this project Dr. John Sfakianakis And yet, even in its current state, the corridor is a modest diplomatic success. It has brought India and the Gulf states closer, signaled Europe's willingness to invest in non-Chinese infrastructure and given Washington a convening role in a grouping that is neither a formal trade bloc nor a military alliance. But diplomacy alone cannot move freight. Clear governance structures, dependable funding and disciplined execution are what will make or break this project. The real challenge will be execution. Coordinating engineering standards, securing rights of way, harmonizing customs rules and aligning digital protocols will require a level of bureaucratic choreography that even Brussels might find daunting. The oft-cited 'phased implementation' risks becoming a euphemism for indefinite delay and, unless each segment of the corridor can operate viably on its own, the entire chain could stall. The Belt and Road Initiative's history offers no shortage of cautionary tales: gleaming ports that sit empty, railway lines mired in debt and high-profile launches followed by quiet decay. IMEC's planners would do well to study these examples — and place less emphasis on ribbon-cutting ceremonies and more on the unglamorous business of making infrastructure work in practice. So, can IMEC deliver? Possibly — but only if it exchanges vision statements for procurement schedules, diplomatic handshakes for binding contracts and high-level endorsements for on-the-ground problem solving. The world has no shortage of trade corridors. What it lacks are corridors that deliver on their promises. IMEC has the map, the mandate and the moment. Whether it has the machinery — and the mettle — remains the billion-dollar question. • Dr. John Sfakianakis is chief economist at the Gulf Research Center.
