A shocking development has unfolded in Lebanon, where the country's central bank has seemingly capitulated to external forces, raising serious concerns about sovereignty and financial autonomy.
In a move that has left many Lebanese citizens feeling invaded and disempowered, the Banque du Liban (BDL) has implemented Circular No. 3, a set of regulations that, on the surface, appear to be standard financial compliance measures. However, beneath the technical jargon, a disturbing reality emerges: Lebanon's financial watchdog has ceded its authority, allowing an external power to dictate its financial policies and practices.
Circular No. 3 mandates that any cash transaction of $1,000 or more must be declared, a threshold that is significantly lower than the $15,000 established by Lebanese law. This means that even everyday transactions, such as purchasing a refrigerator or paying rent, now require extensive financial disclosure.
The circular further requires licensed financial entities to collect and store extensive customer data, including personal details, employment history, income sources, and even marital information. This level of scrutiny is akin to forensic accounting, and it is being imposed on Lebanese citizens without their consent or proper legal oversight.
What's more, the circular claims legal authority while simultaneously violating existing Lebanese regulations. Law No. 42/2015 explicitly sets the cash-declaration threshold at $15,000, yet the BDL has chosen to ignore this, opting instead to align with Washington's 'recommendations.'
The timing of this development is also noteworthy. U.S. officials visited Beirut under the guise of combating Hezbollah's financial resources, and shortly after, a regulatory time bomb was left behind. This raises questions about the true intentions behind these measures and whether they are being used as a tool for political control rather than genuine financial reform.
The impact of Circular No. 3 extends beyond financial transactions. It effectively turns money exchangers into intelligence gatherers, monitoring internal Lebanese transactions and subjecting citizens to invasive scrutiny. This level of surveillance is more stringent than what many countries on the FATF grey list impose, and it is a stark reminder of the power dynamics at play.
The political and financial class that has already looted depositors' savings now expects citizens to trust the same banking system that has left them financially vulnerable. The message is clear: either return to the banks that robbed you or face constant scrutiny and prove your innocence with every financial move.
This situation is a stark example of how foreign interference can quietly normalize control and subordination. If the central bank is willing to rewrite national law at the behest of external powers, what does this mean for Lebanon's future financial autonomy? How long before every financial transaction becomes a political tool, and when will Lebanon be able to regulate its own economy without foreign guards monitoring every cash transaction?
The recent comments by U.S. envoy Ortagus, praising Central Bank governor Karim Saeed as the 'spearhead' in Washington's battle against Hezbollah, only adds fuel to the fire. This public declaration of a Lebanese official's role in the United States' strategic confrontations is a scandalous display of interference and a stark reminder of the power dynamics at play.
This is a critical moment for Lebanon, and it is essential that these issues are discussed openly and honestly. The country's financial future and sovereignty are at stake, and it is time for a serious conversation about the role of external powers in shaping Lebanon's economic policies.
