The results of Lebanon's participation in the International Monetary Fund and World Bank meetings held in Washington between April 15 and 21 indicate that "the Lebanese delegation was not cohesive in explaining Lebanon's position and needs, with each member seemingly singing his tune or marketing his narrative.

Notably, the delegation's head was Deputy Prime Minister Saadeh Al Shami, the official negotiator with the Fund.

Some wanted to market themselves and explain their actions seeking recognition for their achievements.

Some asked the Fund for extra flexibility believing that the preliminary agreement signed in April 2022 is not acceptable in Lebanon, hence the delay in implementing its terms.

Credible sources commented that certain parties within the IMF firmly believe that the agreement with Lebanon is one of the most flexible agreements of its kind in the world.

They questioned: "What is meant by additional flexibility? Why is it sought? And does it come at the expense of the public debt's sustainability after restructuring, and at the expense of economic recovery? Every choice has a price and this is what some members were not of when requesting flexibility without knowing its cost and feasibility."

Regarding some achievements that some wish to "magnify," such as unifying exchange rates and the Central Bank's cessation of state financing, the same sources stated that these achievements are "entirely insufficient as long as there is avoidance in passing a banking restructuring law.

The acting Central Bank Governor, Wassim Mansouri, stated that the Central Bank would expediently establish the legal framework for returning deposits, so all that remains is to await Mansouri's actions. However, unifying the exchange rates is an incomplete step since the Central Bank promised a free exchange rate on the Bloomberg platform and then reneged on the promise.

The sources concluded, "As long as the government flirts with the banks without pressuring them to fully assume their responsibilities towards depositors, Lebanon will remain stagnant without any notable progress in the agreement with the International Monetary Fund. Especially since Lebanon's official presence in the IMF meetings is more about folklore and public relations. Lebanon does not have a clear rescue plan, and participants in the Washington meetings cannot speak on behalf of the state."

This means that such participation is non-serious and futile, and will not contribute to Lebanon's emergence from the crisis. The political class remains collectively responsible, alongside the banks, for obstructing any solution.