Lebanon’s neutrality debate

The idea of Lebanese neutrality is a recurring debate in the country’s political landscape, one that resurfaces whenever Lebanon finds itself pulled into regional ideological, political, or military alignments. Although the 1943 National Pact implicitly embedded neutrality as a guiding principle for the nascent Lebanese state, this notion has never been formally codified into the constitution. As a result, neutrality continues to generate intense polarization among Lebanon’s various political components. For some, neutrality represents a long-awaited guarantee of sovereignty, stability, and protection from regional axes. For others, it is a call for isolationism and an artificial detachment from Lebanon’s natural geopolitical environment. So, what exactly is the concept of “neutrality” and what can it offer to Lebanon?

The country faces heightened exposure to foreign interference and regional power struggles that routinely spill over its borders. The region is plagued by competing revisionist powers and religious/ethnic sub-identities (Hinnebusch 2013). Israel’s war on Gaza and its implications in Lebanon serves as a primary example of how the region’s developments impact the country.

Hence, Lebanon faced a dual conundrum. It’s fragmented identity, coupled by the presence of revisionist powers, generate a cyclical framework where on component reinforces the other. And the result? Re-occurrent episodes of events threatening Lebanese sovereignty. 

Against this backdrop, it is necessary to question the sustainability of Lebanon’s current political system and to consider new constitutional arrangements. But is neutrality compatible with Lebanon’s political heritage, and if so, what kind of neutrality?

Neutrality, as international practice shows, is always a voluntary choice, not something that can be imposed by external actors or international bodies. It demands broad domestic consensus, legislative approval, constitutional adaptation, and a review of international commitments. It requires that the Lebanese themselves decide their future path based on a shared understanding of the national interest. Today, that consensus remains elusive.

Neutrality in Lebanon’s political tradition

Neutrality is not a new concept in Lebanese political life. Successive presidents, cabinets, and dialogue forums have repeatedly invoked it. The most prominent example is the Baabda Declaration of 2012 that was unanimously adopted by political leaders and later submitted to the UN Security Council and General Assembly as an official document. It called for “distancing Lebanon from regional conflicts,” reflecting a rare moment of political convergence.

Historically, Lebanon’s partial detachment from regional tensions between 1943 and 1975 facilitated economic growth and cultural flourishing, earning it the moniker “the Switzerland of the Middle East.” However, this fragile equilibrium was disrupted multiple times, first in 1958 during the Nasserist wave, and more profoundly after the rise of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). The Cairo Agreement of 1969 effectively ceded state authority over parts of the south to armed Palestinian groups, triggering decades of conflict, Israeli invasions, Syrian military presence, and eventual civil war. Of course, this is not to reduce Lebanon’s multifaceted turmoil to a simple sequence of events, but rather to illustrate how many of the subsequent tragedies could have been avoided had Lebanon maintained a consistent and enforceable posture of neutrality.

Against this historical backdrop, advocates of neutrality argue that just as the declarations of Greater Lebanon (1920) and independence (1943) were foundational moments, a declaration of neutrality could be the long-awaited “pact of stability” that secures Lebanon’s sovereignty and protects it from regional conflagrations.

Dimensions of active neutrality

“Active” or “positive” neutrality include three interlinked components.

First, Lebanon would abstain from joining regional or international axes, military alliances, or political conflicts. In return, external actors must respect Lebanon’s sovereignty, refrain from using its territory for military activities, and avoid interfering in its domestic affairs. This vision aligns with international norms, including the Second Hague Convention of 1907. Importantly, neutrality does not conflict with Lebanon’s membership in the Arab League or the United Nations; rather, it aims to strengthen Lebanon’s role within both institutions.

Second, neutrality does not imply disengagement from moral or humanitarian causes. Lebanon’s long-standing support for Palestinian rights and its commitment to just solutions for Palestinian refugees remain central to its diplomatic identity. Positive neutrality means that Lebanon avoids participating in conflicts between states but does not disengage from its diplomatic or moral responsibilities. If one state invades another, Lebanon can denounce the aggression yet simultaneously provide a mediation platform. Neutrality in this sense is practical, not ideological. Furthermore, its religious and cultural pluralism, recognized in Pope John Paul II’s apostolic exhortation A New Hope for Lebanon and reflected in the UN’s 2019 establishment of the “Academy for Human Encounters and Dialogue” in Beirut, positions the country as a natural hub for interreligious and intercultural dialogue.

Third, a neutral Lebanon requires a strong state. Only effective state institutions can safeguard internal peace, protect borders, and shield the country from external threats. Strengthening the state also necessitates resolving border demarcation issues, especially with Israel and Syria, in accordance with international agreements.

According to Hitti, Bahout, and Tashjian (2025), neutrality alone cannot anchor Lebanon’s security. It must be coupled with positive neutrality, a model that emphasizes cooperation with neighbors, balanced diplomacy, and active conflict resolution. This approach is distinct from legal neutrality (like Switzerland or Austria), which requires international recognition and is incompatible with Lebanon’s obligations as a founding member of the Arab League.

This concept aligns with recent political discourse. President Joseph Aoun’s inaugural speech and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam’s ministerial statement both emphasize a foreign policy that upholds Lebanon’s Arab commitments while refusing to be pulled into wars not of its own choosing.

Crucially, positive neutrality strengthens Lebanon’s diplomatic role by portraying the country as a “neutral” arbitrator. Rather than withdrawing from regional institutions, Lebanon can amplify its voice, advocate for Arab consensus, and champion peaceful solutions. International law does not prohibit neutral states from expressing support or condemnation; rather, it requires that such positions remain consistent with national interest and non-alignment.

For Lebanon, adopting positive neutrality would help address two realities:

- Lebanon cannot afford another war with Israel, given military imbalance, economic collapse, and diplomatic vulnerability

- Lebanon cannot detach entirely from regional dynamics, as past attempts at isolation have allowed external actors to use Lebanese territory as a battleground

Positive neutrality therefore seeks a middle path, rejecting military entanglements while embracing diplomatic engagement.

Pro-active diplomacy is the natural complement to this model. Instead of reacting to crises, Lebanon must anticipate them and construct channels for dialogue. Lebanon’s diaspora, one of the world’s largest and most influential, can serve as a unique soft-power tool.

Can Lebanon realize this vision?

Whether Lebanon can achieve neutrality depends on one fundamental question: Can the Lebanese agree on a shared vision of the state? Without internal consensus, constitutional reform, strengthened institutions, and a commitment to proactive diplomacy, neutrality will remain an aspiration rather than a policy.

Ultimately, only the Lebanese can decide whether neutrality best serves their future. The debate remains open, but its importance has never been more evident.