 The Regional & International Affairs Cluster at the Institute held a discussion on "Lebanon’s Foreign Policy: Challenges and Recommendations," on Monday, October 20, 2025. The event centered on the Institute’s policy brief on the subject – presented by the Regional & International Affairs Cluster Coordinator Yeghia Tashjian, followed by a discussion with Nassif Hitti, Lebanon's former Minister of Foreign Affairs and IFI Associate Fellow, Caroline Ziadeh, Lebanon's Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the UN Office at Geneva, moderated by Institute Director Joseph Bahout. Joseph Bahout opened the session by situating the paper within the Institute’s broader mission of turning policy analysis into actionable recommendations. He noted that Lebanon’s diplomacy has too often mirrored domestic turmoil rather than projected a unified national vision. The goal of the policy brief, he explained, was to offer both a strategic framework and a practical toolkit, an attempt to “recraft the apparatus” of Lebanese diplomacy. This framing underscored an important distinction that ran throughout the talk: that foreign policy is not just about positions or slogans, but about institutional capacity, laws, personnel, and the political will to implement a shared vision. Yeghia Tashjian’s presentation highlighted Lebanon’s unique diplomatic legacy: a small country historically positioned at the crossroads of civilizations, whose diversity and openness once translated into regional influence. Yet, as he pointed out, internal divisions have blurred the line between domestic and foreign policy, making Lebanon vulnerable to external pressures and interventions. His call for a state-centric foreign policy rested on two intertwined ideas. First, positive neutrality, the notion that Lebanon should avoid aligning with any regional camp while maintaining cooperative ties with all. And second, proactive diplomacy, engaging preemptively to mediate, build networks, and strengthen soft power rather than reacting to crises. Together, these concepts aim to restore Lebanon’s credibility as a small but agile state that survives through mediation, not confrontation. Meanwhile, Nassif Hitti offered a sobering yet constructive intervention. Drawing on decades of diplomatic experience, he warned that Lebanon has long confused diplomacy with foreign policy. “Diplomacy without a doctrine,” he said, “is like music without instruments.” His reflection grounded theory in realism: geography cannot be ignored, and national consensus is the precondition of any coherent external strategy. Hitti’s endorsement of positive neutrality was pragmatic, not idealistic, neutrality, he stressed, applicable only to relations with friendly or neighboring states, not with an enemy like Israel. He argued that Lebanon’s survival depends on striking a balance between: avoiding alignment in regional conflicts while cultivating credibility through bridge-building, dialogue, and public diplomacy. He also emphasized the importance of public and cultural diplomacy, seeing Lebanese soft power, the diaspora, education, and cultural ties, as a vital extension of statecraft in a globalized world. Caroline Ziadeh’s remarks from Geneva brought a practitioner’s perspective that grounded the discussion in the realities of diplomatic work. She insisted that all foreign policy must begin from the national interest, as defined in the constitution and ministerial declarations. Yet she also exposed the constraints diplomats face: the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is structurally outdated (its legal framework dates back to 1970), underfunded, and politically constrained. Her vision of reform included reviving the ministry as a coordinating hub for public diplomacy, building a diplomatic academy, and creating a clear communication strategy that aligns Lebanon’s message across ministries. She also highlighted how Lebanon’s diplomats have demonstrated “resilience despite adversity,” maintaining networks and soft power even when state institutions crumble. More importantly, she reframed neutrality not as passive detachment, but as an active contribution to regional stability, noting that if consolidated internally, Lebanon’s neutrality could serve as a stabilizing model in a turbulent Middle East. During the Q&A session, one of the core dilemmas of Lebanon’s foreign policy was raised: how to practice neutrality and mediation without internal unity or regional stability. Both Hitti and Ziadeh acknowledged that national consensus is the missing foundation, Lebanon being unable to act as a mediator or neutral actor if its domestic factions are proxies for regional powers. Yet they also agreed that neutrality, even if partial or aspirational, is the only viable path for preserving sovereignty and preventing the country from becoming a battlefield. Hitti’s insistence on building credibility at home, “diversity is a richness, but no party has the right to decide alone,” captured the structural paradox of Lebanon’s political system: the same consociational arrangement that ensures representation also paralyzes decision-making. Read the “Lebanon’s Foreign Policy: Challenges and Recommendations” Policy Brief in English and Arabic. Comments are closed.
|
