Why this year’s Spring Meetings were unusual

For many, the International Monetary Fund and World Bank’s Spring Meetings might seem like routine calendar fixtures — occasions where finance ministers, central bank governors and senior executives convene to address global economic concerns. But this year’s meetings stood out, coinciding with President Donald Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs, which appeared to be steering the world toward trade or currency wars, posing the risk of long-term damage to the international economic order.

Few institutions are more central to that order than the IMF and the World Bank. Established in the aftermath of the Second World War, these institutions were tasked with reorganizing the global financial architecture — promoting fiscal discipline, enabling coordinated monetary responses and encouraging economic integration, particularly in times when retaliatory tariffs or competitive devaluations were seen as triggers for conflict and even global wars.

Lebanon is no stranger to these gatherings. In fact, its delegations — typically comprising officials from various ministries and the offices of the president and prime minister — have been regular participants. This institutional diversity reflects the cross-cutting nature of Lebanon’s challenges and a deeper structural reality: the country’s fragmented and often incoherent decision-making process. In many ways, the makeup of the Lebanese delegation mirrors the sectarian power-sharing arrangement at the heart of the Lebanese state — where representation in international forums often prioritizes political inclusion over strategic relevance.

Lebanese representatives reiterated their interest in reaching a comprehensive reform agreement with the IMF

Dr. Khalil Gebara

At this year’s meetings, held last week, Lebanese representatives reiterated their interest in reaching a comprehensive reform agreement with the IMF in exchange for financial assistance. This marks the third time a government has pursued such a deal since Lebanon’s economic collapse in October 2019. While the international community continues to detect resistance from entrenched political and economic elites and internal divergences within the delegation, there may now be slightly improved prospects.

A broad consensus appears to be emerging among international actors: securing an IMF agreement is indispensable to unlocking financial support for a country ravaged by a financial crisis estimated to exceed $80 billion — an implosion that wiped out the savings of both Lebanese and non-Lebanese depositors. Adding to these losses is the burden of the most recent conflict, with the World Bank estimating damages at $14 billion. An agreement would signal a long-overdue commitment to fiscal discipline and structural reform — after decades of economic mismanagement.

What stood out in this year’s meetings was the participation of Syria — Lebanon’s deeply intertwined neighbor. Despite the many challenges and the complex relationship between the two countries, their trajectories inevitably overlap and intersect. Syria’s return to the international stage was among the most significant developments of this year’s meetings.

For the first time in decades, an official Syrian delegation — including the ministers of foreign affairs and finance and the newly appointed central bank governor — attended the meetings. They held side discussions with representatives of international financial institutions to explore avenues for economic recovery and postwar reconstruction.

This reengagement would not have been possible without Saudi Arabia and Qatar’s support, as they paid $15 million on behalf of the Syrian government to settle long-standing arrears with the World Bank, effectively opening the door to future grants and technical assistance. As a direct outcome of the Syrian delegation’s participation, the IMF appointed a new mission chief for Syria.

The challenges facing Syria are daunting. The list of urgent needs is long and prioritizing them is no easy task. Questions about the features of the potential economic model, the scope and function of the public sector and the role of the private sector remain unresolved.

Syria’s return to the international stage was among the most significant developments of this year’s meetings

Dr. Khalil Gebara

However, reconstruction in Syria is not merely about rebuilding physical infrastructure. It also entails reviving a collapsed economy, restoring public services, reinvesting in human and social capital and addressing the deep societal trauma and mass displacement caused by the conflict. Financial estimates vary, but the price tag is consistently staggering: from $180 billion just to return to preconflict gross domestic product levels to broader recovery costs ranging between $250 billion and $400 billion.

A persistent item on the Syrian agenda is the demand for relief from international sanctions. Any effort to secure aid or reintegrate into the global financial system is constrained by sanctions, which remain one of the most significant barriers to postconflict stabilization. For example, the implementation of the UN Development Programme’s $1.3 billion aid plan for Syria is already constrained by the existing sanctions regime.

Sanctions are typically intended as tools for influencing political outcomes. However, in Syria’s case, their ongoing presence risks preventing the very conditions needed for any viable political resolution. Sanctions prolong instability by obstructing economic recovery, impeding the restoration of services and sowing uncertainty. This environment empowers spoilers, deepens grievances and diminishes the prospects of a sustainable peace or a functional state. They also hamper meaningful dialogue with Syria’s neighbors on the return of refugees — an issue critical to easing the political, social and economic burdens placed on host countries.

Lebanon and Syria are both seeking to reintegrate into the international economic system, while facing the urgent need to rein in their cash-based economies and dismantle entrenched patterns of illicit trade, money laundering and extortion networks that have flourished in the absence of effective governance.

As both countries navigate the fragile path from collapse to recovery, this year’s Spring Meetings served as a powerful reminder that international engagement is essential — not only for economic stability but also for saving lives. Neither country can confront the magnitude of its challenges without the sustained support of committed international partners.

• Dr. Khalil Gebara is a Lebanese academic and public policy expert. X: @gebarak