BEIRUT — With every step Lebanon takes to demarcate its borders in an effort to assert its rights, the outcome seems to be yet another loss. This was the case in 2007, again in 2022, and it is unfolding once more today.

Lebanon’s relinquishment of its maritime rights began with the 2007 agreement signed by Fouad Siniora’s government (despite its loss of its charter due to the withdrawal of Shiite ministers).

The agreement adopted a median line and ignored the principles of equity and proportionality, resulting in Lebanon losing thousands of square kilometers of its exclusive economic zone to Cyprus. 

A study prepared by the Legal Consultations Center at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 2014 under the leadership of Ambassador Saad Zakhia showed that Lebanon lost 2,643 square kilometers, while a hydrographic study by the Lebanese Army, using the latest measurement methods and satellites, showed that the loss exceeded 5,000 square kilometers.

Thus, Cyprus, with its long, open coastline, became the biggest winner at the expense of Lebanon, with its short coastline, in stark contradiction to the principles of the Law of the Sea Convention, which requires a fair outcome.

Years later, specifically in 2022, Prime Minister Najib Mikati formed a committee to study the issue and attempt to rectify the imbalance.
The committee concluded that it was necessary to adopt a three-pronged approach to fairness, starting with drawing a provisional median line, then adjusting it according to specific circumstances, leading to a test of proportionality.

It also recommended amending Decree 6433/2011 according to new coordinates, re-negotiating with Cyprus, registering these coordinates with the United Nations, and even resorting to international arbitration if negotiations failed.

These recommendations opened the door to reclaiming thousands of kilometers for Lebanon, but they were quickly neglected with the formation of Nawaf Salam’s government.

On July 11, 2025, Salam decided to form a technical committee headed by Minister of Public Works Fayez Rasamni. The committee included Brigadier General Mazen Basbous, a representative of the army, and lawyer Najib Massihi, an expert in international law, in addition to directors general with no technical expertise. 

Notable was the exclusion of prominent experts such as retired Brigadier General Afif Ghaith, known for his opposition to the 2007 agreement. 
The new committee again adopted the median line, ignoring the jurisprudence of international courts that makes fairness the basis for demarcation, and ignoring the recommendations of the Mikati Committee.  

What’s even more suspicious is that it completed its work with unjustified haste, reflecting a clear acquiescence to American dictates that pushed for accelerating the agreement with Cyprus.

Just a few days after the formation of the peace committee, Cypriot intelligence chief Tasos Tzionis visited Beirut, threatening that his country would demand additional areas if Lebanon failed to implement the 2007 agreement, which would mean halting the development of four key maritime blocks.

This threat came under blatant American cover, and as a reward for Cyprus, which since 2017 has opened its airspace and territory to the Israeli Air Force for maneuvers simulating an invasion of Lebanon.

The developments prompted the Parliamentary Public Works and Energy Committee to hold an extraordinary session on September 18, 2025, chaired by MP Sajih Attieh, and attended by Rasamni, Basbous, and Masihi, along with prominent experts, including Brigadier General Khalil Gemayel and Dr. Issam Khalifeh. 
Basbous and Masihi presented the committee’s justifications, noting that the principle of “estoppel” prevents amendment to Decree 6433 and that the difference in the length of the Cypriot and Lebanese coasts is immaterial.

However, MPs and experts responded firmly, emphasizing that Article 3 of the decree allows for amendment when new data becomes available, that the length of the Cypriot coastline was deliberately inflated by introducing undulations, and that the Court of the Law of the Sea’s rulings rely on the principle of proportionality rather than a pure median line.

Brigadier General Gemayel presented eight international rulings proving Lebanon’s right to reclaim vast areas, recalling that Cyprus represents only 3 percent of the region’s coastline and yet claims maritime areas ten times its land area, while Lebanon claims less than 1.7 times its land area.

During the session, strong parliamentary voices were raised, most notably from Hezbollah.

MP Hussein Hajj Hassan called for freezing any agreement with Cyprus until the demarcation with Syria is completed, as recommended by the Court of the Law of the Sea. He warned against using the threat of companies withdrawing as an excuse, as this is primarily a foreign political decision, and pointed out that Cyprus is the one that could be most harmed. 

For his part, pro–Resistance MP Jamil al-Sayyed stressed the need to seek the assistance of specialized international experts to form a comprehensive scientific picture that guarantees Lebanon’s rights.  

At the same time, Dr. Issam Khalifa described the incident as bordering on high treason and urged that committee members be prosecuted if it were proven that they had squandered the rights of the Lebanese people. 

A number of MPs, including Halima Kaakour, supported this position.

This chronology makes it clear that Nawaf Salam’s government revived the unfair 2007 agreement, ignored the recommendations of the Mikati Committee, which affirmed Lebanon’s right to amend Decree 6433 in accordance with the principles of fairness, and formed a weak committee that excluded national experts and relied on flimsy legal arguments.

It then succumbed to American-Cypriot pressure, consecrating Lebanon’s loss of more than five thousand square kilometers of its maritime rights. However, this squandering did not go unchallenged. It was confronted by voices from parliament and national experts, particularly from Hezbollah, who considered what happened to be a surrender to American tutelage and a deliberate squandering of Lebanon’s sovereignty and wealth.

Observers suggest establishing an independent body to address the demarcation issue so that the fate of Lebanon’s maritime resources does not remain based on scientific and interest-based principles, but rather is subject to improvised positions or submission to international pressures seeking to impose a maritime fait accompli that suits foreign agendas.