Banque du Liban Suspends Medical and Hospitalisation Approvals for Its Employees at Al-Rasoul Al-Aazam Hospital and the Lebanese Medical Centre (LMC): Concerns Grow Over Possible Expansion of Restrictions to Health, Educational and Media Institutions

Masdar Diplomacy

By Marlene Khalife

From Banque du Liban’s circular concerning Al-Rasoul Al-Aazam Hospital and the Lebanese Medical Centre (LMC) to concerns over a possible widening of the measures: Are we witnessing isolated administrative decisions, or the gradual emergence of a broader course of action that could affect banking, healthcare, educational and media institutions?

The Governor of Banque du Liban (BDL) has issued an internal circular suspending medical and hospitalisation approvals for the bank’s employees at both Al-Rasoul Al-Aazam Hospital and the Lebanese Medical Centre (LMC).

On the surface, the decision appears to be an internal administrative measure limited to the central bank’s employees and the healthcare facilities with which it deals. However, examining its background and timing, and placing it within the context of a series of measures taken in recent months, raises questions that go beyond the circular itself: Are these independent decisions, each with its own administrative justification, or could what is unfolding mark the beginning of a broader course of action aimed at tightening restrictions on specific institutions under the pretext of responding to US pressure?

It is well known that the number of Banque du Liban employees who use the medical and hospital services of Al-Rasoul Al-Aazam Hospital and the Lebanese Medical Centre (LMC) is relatively small. This means that suspending hospitalisation approvals is unlikely, in practical terms, to place any significant burden on the two hospitals or substantially affect their operations. Yet this limited scope raises questions about the decision’s actual purpose and effectiveness, inviting an interpretation that goes beyond its immediate impact on the employees concerned. Are we dealing with a measure that is limited in scale but carries implications for what may follow? Could this circular be a prelude to broader steps affecting other institutions, as part of a course of action whose contours have yet to become clear?

Dr Ali Miqdad, a member of Parliament’s Health Committee, approached the decision from its humanitarian and healthcare perspective, warning of the consequences of depriving Banque du Liban employees of access to the medical specialisations available at the two hospitals, particularly cardiac surgery and cancer treatment. At the same time, he stressed that the decision would not harm the hospitals themselves.

Sources following the matter, however, view the circular from a different perspective, arguing that “the danger of the decision does not lie in the number of employees it affects, but in the possibility that it could become a precedent opening the door to similar measures targeting other institutions”.

These sources point out that the circular was issued less than a month after the licence of Bank Saderat Iran was revoked. The bank had played a role in transferring payments owed to the two hospitals by public institutions and military and security services, particularly the Lebanese Army and the Internal Security Forces.

The sources believe that the timing of the two measures warrants closer scrutiny, warning that “what appear today to be separate decisions could, if the same approach continues, turn into a gradual process of tightening restrictions on specific institutions”.

From the Central Bank to Public Institutions: How Far Could the Measures Extend?

In this context, the sources raise a series of questions about the possibility of other institutions following Banque du Liban’s example. They ask: “What if other entities were to take similar measures, beginning with Middle East Airlines (MEA), extending to the Port of Beirut and the Association of Banks, and eventually reaching the Lebanese Army and the Internal Security Forces?”

The sources raise another question concerning the insurance sector: “What if these measures were extended to insurance companies, which then decided to remove the two hospitals from their healthcare provider networks?”

In such a scenario, the issue would no longer concern an internal circular or a limited administrative measure. Instead, it could develop into an expanding range of measures affecting the institutions concerned, their employees, and, moreover, the patients who depend on their medical and hospital services.

This leads to a fundamental question raised by the sources: If the measures have begun in the banking and healthcare sectors, what would prevent them from extending to other sectors?

Could the Repercussions Extend from Healthcare to Educational Institutions?

The concerns are not confined to the banking and healthcare sectors. The same sources raise the possibility that the measures could extend to educational institutions, asking: “What if the measures taken against Al-Rasoul Al-Aazam Hospital and the Lebanese Medical Centre were extended to educational institutions, from Al-Mahdi and Al-Mustafa schools to Al-Maaref University?”

In this regard, questions have emerged that warrant verification and further scrutiny concerning reports that some applicants have allegedly been rejected from examinations and recruitment competitions for positions within the state administration because they completed their secondary or university education at certain educational institutions, specifically Al-Mahdi schools.

The sources concerned ask: “Under what law can discrimination between citizens be justified on the basis of the educational institution from which they graduated?”

This question places the issue within a broader framework that goes beyond a dispute over an administrative decision or a particular institution. It touches on the principle of equality among citizens and their right to access public-sector employment in accordance with legal criteria and merit, rather than on the basis of the educational institution they attended.

From Banking and Healthcare Measures to the Possibility of Targeting Educational and Media Institutions

The sources do not rule out the possibility that the scope of these concerns could widen to include other sectors. They ask: “What if the circle of decisions were to expand to include the revocation of licences held by educational and media institutions, under the same pretext that has increasingly been invoked to justify various measures: US pressure?”

The danger of these scenarios does not lie in asserting that they will materialise or treating them as decisions that have already been taken. Rather, it lies in the concerns they raise about the absence of clear safeguards to prevent such developments, and in the possibility that individual measures, regardless of their justifications, could become precedents on which subsequent decisions are based.

From this perspective, the issue is not limited to Banque du Liban’s circular. It concerns the limits of the measures that official institutions may take in response to external pressure, as well as the legal and institutional safeguards that should govern any decision affecting citizens’ interests or the continued operation of institutions in the country.

Where Does US Pressure End and the State’s Responsibility Begin?

In light of these developments and questions, the fundamental issue returns to the forefront: Are we witnessing isolated administrative measures, each with its own reasons and justifications, or a gradual process that begins by restricting banking and healthcare options and could eventually extend to placing entire social, educational and media institutions under pressure?

The most sensitive question raised by these sources is: Where should the limits of responding to US pressure be drawn? And who can guarantee that the exceptional measures being taken today will not become permanent policy tomorrow?

Print