At the end of last January, Emirati businessman Khalaf Al Habtoor surprised Lebanese economic circles with his sudden decision to stop all his investments in Lebanon and sell his properties. This decision was not just passing news, but was issued by the founder and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Al Habtoor Group, a prominent name in the world of Arab investment and closely linked to the hospitality and tourism sector in Lebanon.
Al Habtoor explained that this decision came after careful study with the group’s board of directors, and described it as “painful,” stressing that he did not wish to reach it. He attributed the reason to “the current conditions in Lebanon,” which are characterized by the absence of security and stability and the disappearance of any hope for an imminent improvement, which prompted him to take radical measures, including freezing all investment projects that the group was planning, and preventing himself, his family, and the group’s managers from traveling to Lebanon, in addition to selling all properties and investments.
He pointed out that these decisions came as a result of a careful evaluation and continuous follow-up of developments in Lebanon, knowing that the group owns two of the most important hotels in Lebanon, which are “Al Habtoor Grand Beirut” and “Metropolitan Palace Beirut.”
Despite the seriousness of this announcement, the official Lebanese reaction was remarkably disappointing. We have not seen any initiative from the Ministry of Tourism, or any movement from the Prime Minister, nor even a clear position from the Presidency of the Republic. There was no communication, no inquiry, and even minimal interest in a decision that carries profound negative connotations about the investment climate in the country.
The question here is not related to Al Habtoor alone, but rather to how the Lebanese state deals with the investment file as a whole. How can a country suffering from a stifling economic crisis deal with such indifference with the withdrawal of an investor of this size? What message does it send to other investors who are watching the situation closely?
In countries seeking to attract investments, a similar announcement was sufficient to launch immediate action to contain the situation, by opening channels of dialogue and trying to understand the reasons and work to address them. In Lebanon, it seems that inaction has become the norm, as if the loss of investments is no longer worth even a mere reaction.
This official silence is not just a detail, but rather a clear indication of a deep flaw in the way the state deals with investors, and the absence of a clear vision of how to restore lost confidence. Has the state become incapable of taking the initiative? Or does it no longer consider investment a priority?
At a moment when official institutions were supposed to move quickly to limit the repercussions of Al Habtoor’s decision, they chose silence. In the world of politics and economics, silence is often the harshest kind of message.
