Negotiation skills refer to the capacities and methods used by an individual when engaging in discussions with another party in order to reach an agreement that satisfies both sides, without sacrificing the rights or interests of either. Key negotiation skills include planning, managing expectations, persuasion, problem-solving, decision-making, and, above all, the ability to protect the rights of those one represents.
But in Lebanon, things are quite different. When Samir Hammoud negotiates with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) with the sole purpose of satisfying the institution at any cost—driven by the ambition of presenting his credentials to international organizations and influential actors for political and personal aims—disaster becomes inevitable.
Officially the senior advisor to Finance Minister Yassine Jaber, Hammoud has, as if by magic, transformed into an emissary of the IMF within the Lebanese negotiating delegation. He approaches files in line with the standards and conditions of the IMF, forgetting that he was, until very recently, chairman of the Banking Control Commission. He indirectly accused that very commission of having failed to anticipate risks, to carry out proper audits of the banking sector’s safety and soundness, and to maintain its international reputation and credibility. He is the one who stated, in substance, “If there are irregularities in depositors’ accounts, there are also irregularities in the banks’ accounts.”
This raises the following question: Who is actually negotiating with the IMF?
Are there real negotiations taking place, or are the Lebanese delegates simply receiving “pre-prepared documents” containing non-negotiable conditions, turning the delegation into a mere courier between the IMF and the government?
The clearest example is what happened during the latest meeting in Washington, on the sidelines of the IMF gatherings. The Lebanese delegation—composed of Finance Minister Yassine Jaber, Economy Minister Amer Bsat, and Samir Hammoud—received from the IMF a document listing the required amendments to the bank restructuring law. Upon returning to Beirut, the delegation placed the document before the Cabinet, which approved it with a simple “approved”—conditional upon the IMF—without any debate or negotiation.
Parliament had previously adopted the bank-restructuring law after introducing numerous amendments, linking its implementation to the “financial-gap law.” This displeased the IMF, which swiftly drafted new amendments and delivered them to the Lebanese delegation, which then brought them back to Beirut to be approved by the government. So much for “sovereignty.”
Is this truly how negotiations between states and international institutions are conducted?
Is this how the interests of depositors are protected—by validating demands delivered in sealed envelopes, at any price, even if that price is the confiscation of their money?
Such developments raise serious questions regarding the intentions of some of Lebanon’s negotiators—among them Samir Hammoud—whose ambition for the “Grand Serail seat” now seems to dictate his choices, even if it comes at the expense of depositors.
Hammoud’s positions align directly with those of the IMF, which seeks to write off bank capital and depositors’ funds. His entire approach follows the Fund’s diktats, as it looks for additional ways to erase most deposits under the pretext of shrinking the financial gap—thereby wiping out bank capital, meaning the banks themselves and their depositors.
This raises questions about Hammoud’s evolving role at the Ministry of Finance, within the negotiation committee with the IMF, and within the committee tasked with determining the fate of the USD 16.5 billion recorded on the Central Bank’s books as government debt.
With all due respect, Mr. Hammoud, your agenda is now clear. No one will allow you to promote the erasure of deposits or the confiscation of depositors’ money under flimsy pretexts aimed solely at satisfying the IMF. Those who contributed to shaping past monetary and financial policies have no right to speak about depositors’ funds or bank accounts—especially someone who chaired the Banking Control Commission, headed BankMed for years, and served as an economic advisor to two former prime ministers: the late Rafic Hariri and Fouad Siniora.
Which leaves one question: Shouldn’t Samir Hammoud be held accountable?
Comments