With ongoing government discussions about the “financial gap” law, objections are escalating in the streets, political circles, and even within the government itself. This strengthens the opponents of the method of distributing financial losses and foreshadows a period of difficult challenges on the financial and economic levels in the coming decades. Specifically, MP Najat Aoun Saliba tells that some deposits may not be returned to their owners before 2046.
MP Saliba emphasizes that the depositor will be the biggest loser, while the political forces and parliamentary blocs will not oppose the “gap” law. She adds that these forces “pass what they want and what suits their interests regardless of its legality, after the Parliament passed loans for the day of loans despite knowing in advance that they were not feasible.”
However, this does not necessarily mean that the “gap” law will pass easily in Parliament, as Saliba explains. She points to the insistence of the International Monetary Fund on its approval, in addition to pressure from the international community, considering that “reform is equivalent to the arms file in terms of importance,” meaning that “the restriction of weapons will not proceed independently but must coincide with the reform clause through the gap law.”
Saliba reveals that the extent of international insistence on all the clauses of the current “gap” law is unclear, as the pressure mainly aims to ensure financial stability and reform, but this does not necessarily mean that what the government will approve is the same as what the International Monetary Fund stipulates.
In this context, Saliba points to the existence of a mix-up between what the international community aspires to and what the government seeks. She explains that the International Monetary Fund does not interfere in matters of accountability and the prosecution of those involved and responsible for the collapse, but rather requires the Lebanese state to be able to meet its financial obligations towards it.
Saliba affirms that the government and judicial authorities are responsible for accountability, not the International Monetary Fund. She raises a question about the continuation of the collapse and impunity for those responsible for it, as it is unreasonable to steal 100 billion dollars without holding any party accountable or conducting a comprehensive financial audit of what has happened since 2019 until now, especially since the law specifies the start of treatment from the beginning of the collapse period.
Saliba warns that the real goal of the “gap” law may be to hold citizens accountable, grant a general amnesty to all perpetrators of crimes against depositors, and reward them under the pretext of achieving false stability, “similar to what happened after the end of the civil war when an amnesty was issued for all those who were behind the barricades under the pretext of political stability.”
Saliba expresses her surprise at what was stated in the law regarding depositors whose deposits exceed one hundred thousand dollars, as they will be paid over 15 or 20 years, even though depositors have been waiting for “fair” solutions for six years.
