The message behind the five countries' joint statement

A recent statement by the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and Japan has raised questions about the message being sent to Lebanon. While the five countries called for an independent judicial investigation, the statement also comes at a time of growing international pressure on Lebanon to address Hezbollah's weapons and implement government decisions. But is the message limited to the judiciary, or is it also a warning to Lebanese authorities over continued delays?

For political writer and analyst Wajdi Al Aridi, the statement carries a clear message: international patience with Lebanon's slow implementation of key decisions is running out. And while Hezbollah remains a central concern, the warning is also directed at Lebanese authorities.

A message to Hezbollah or the Lebanese government?

"The message from the five countries was not directed exclusively at Hezbollah," Al Aridi said, explaining that it was also addressed to the Lebanese President, the government, and all officials responsible for implementing state decisions.

He said the message to Lebanese authorities was straightforward: "You can no longer afford to delay."

Al Aridi pointed to growing frustration among the five countries and the wider international community over the pace at which Lebanon is implementing decisions adopted by the Council of Ministers. These include placing all weapons under state control, ensuring that Beirut is free of weapons, and dissolving Hezbollah's military wing.

"There is frustration and criticism from the five countries, as well as from the international community as a whole, regarding the Lebanese state's slow progress," he explained.

For Al Aridi, the statement places responsibility directly on Lebanese authorities, rather than allowing them to continue postponing decisions that have already been made.

However, he also acknowledged that international governments understand the difficulties facing Lebanon, particularly its sectarian and political sensitivities. He said these countries are aware of the need to avoid internal confrontation and continue to monitor developments while maintaining communication with Lebanese officials.

Nevertheless, this understanding does not mean that delays will continue to be accepted.

"The international community, particularly the five countries, is no longer willing to accept further hesitation or delays," Al Aridi said.

Hezbollah challenges the meaning of foreign interference

The statement has also raised questions about foreign interference, particularly following Hezbollah's criticism of the five countries' position.

For Al Aridi, however, the distinction between international support and interference is clear.

"Frankly, Hezbollah's main concern is not simply to portray the statement issued by the five countries as foreign interference," he said. Instead, he argued that Hezbollah seeks to maintain a role in negotiations that should be conducted under the authority of the Lebanese state.

He referred to negotiations with Israel in 2006, conducted through German mediation over the return of bodies and the release of prisoners, as an example. He also mentioned the maritime border demarcation negotiations mediated by Amos Hochstein, arguing that Hezbollah does not want the Lebanese state to exercise its negotiating authority independently.

"Those who are truly interfering in Lebanese affairs are the ones supporting a political party and providing it with weapons to destabilize Lebanon and damage its relations with foreign countries," he said.

He identified Iran as the main source of such interference, accusing Tehran of supporting Hezbollah and influencing its regional activities.

Al Aridi referred to Hezbollah's involvement in Syria in support of Bashar al-Assad, its support for Gaza, and its relationship with Iran. He also cited statements by Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf concerning Hezbollah's support for Iran during its latest war.

"This is what constitutes interference," he said, adding that the statement issued by the five countries should not be placed in the same category.

He pointed to Lebanon's historical relations with France, including cultural, social, and Francophone ties, as examples of longstanding international partnerships.

For Al Aridi, supporting Lebanon's institutions is fundamentally different from financing or arming a political faction.

Is international patience with Lebanon running out?

Al Aridi described the statement as support for judicial independence at a time when political influence over the judiciary remains a concern.

"It was not interference in judicial affairs. Rather, it was intended to support judicial independence and the separation of the judiciary from political authority," he said.

According to him, these developments show the importance of allowing judicial institutions to carry out their responsibilities without political interference.

He also connected the international message to the future of foreign support for Lebanon, particularly from Gulf countries. Al Aridi explained that Lebanon has historically maintained close relations with the international community and benefited from financial and political assistance. However, he argued that the conditions surrounding such assistance have changed.

"Today, not a single penny or dirham will come from any Gulf country before Hezbollah is disarmed," he said.

He described this as a clear distinction established by Gulf countries between supporting Lebanon and accepting the continued presence of an armed organization operating outside state authority.

"These countries have drawn a clear line regarding what they expect from the Lebanese state: a strong central authority," the political analyst explained.

Al Aridi also argued that Hezbollah's ability to determine questions of war and peace represents a challenge to the authority of Lebanese institutions.

"The state within the state has become stronger than the state itself," he said.

Despite his criticism, Al Aridi believes that the international community has not decided to abandon Lebanon. Instead, foreign governments remain committed to supporting the country, its institutions, and its army, but expect concrete progress in implementing political decisions.

"The international community has decided to continue supporting Lebanon," he said, emphasizing the need for a central authority and a Lebanese Army that is not overshadowed by an armed organization.