Anarchy, a failed state and a power vacuum are just some of the phrases that political analysts or journalists use to describe the prevailing state of affairs in Libya.
No matter who is responsible for the political and humanitarian catastrophe in the country, the whole world needs to face up and atone for the failure of the international community to encourage and institute civilian rule in the country. It was 42 years of an authoritarian regime for Libyans under Col. Moammar Gadhafi, the military strongman who toppled King Idris al-Senussi in 1969 and ruled the country until the Feb. 17 revolution in 2011.
Despite high hopes for the oil-rich North African country to finally enjoy much-needed reforms along with political and economic stability, civil war erupted again in May 2014 when the self-proclaimed Gen. Khalifa Haftar fought Daesh terrorists in Benghazi and later expanded the attacks into country-wide aggression with the support of local and foreign powers.
Seizing most Libyan territory from the east to the south with military and political support from Russia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Saudi Arabia, France and the U.S., Haftar is now battling the Government of National Accord (GNA) – the Tripoli-based government formed in 2016 as a result of a process brokered by the United Nations – with a view to taking full control of the country and instituting a military regime, one that is no different from that of Gadhafi.
Haftar convinced regional and international powers that he could take the capital Tripoli in a very short period of time and set siege to the city from the outskirts with an attack launched on April 4. Yet, he could not deliver what he promised. His aggression toward the capital only exacerbated the humanitarian cost of the Libyan civil war.
The current clash between Haftar’s militia, dubbed the Libyan National Army (LNA), and GNA forces was described as a military stalemate, by a high-ranking U.N. official at a meeting with journalists and experts in Tripoli last week. “The military stalemate can go on for a while. Around 1,000 troops continue fighting on each side in an area 30 to 40 kilometers away from the Tripoli center. Both sides have almost the same weaponry and approximately the same manpower,” the U.N. official said to describe the scope of the clash.
“If belligerents can still think that the current situation is not a military stalemate and assume that they can still win over the other side, they will not be convinced to start the negotiations. Our role as the United Nations is to convince both sides. The beginning of the political dialogue depends on the cessation of hostilities,” the official said. He acknowledged that both sides have the same resources and are backed by foreign powers.
Despite efforts by the U.N. Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL) and U.N. Special Representative to Libya Ghassan Salame, Libyan authorities have so far fiercely censured the U.N. and the international community for providing political and military support for the Haftar forces. “We have been trying to institute a civilian government and a democratic order. But our efforts have turned futile because of the support of the international community for the military dictatorship,” Naser Alkrew, a member of the Tripoli Municipal Council said at a meeting with journalists and experts in the Libyan capital.
Yousif Bdiri, the mayor of Gharyan, a small town 50 kilometers south of Tripoli, also stressed that the international community is partly to blame for the failure of the integration process. “The lack of implementation of the integration process is because of the international community. They were not serious or keen on supporting civilian life. They were not interested in integrating militia forces to a disciplined and trained Libyan national army,” Bdiri asserted.
Libya’s complex political structure
One of the reasons for the protracted Libyan civil war and the failure to institute a stable government is the dispersed centers of power in the country where there are very few national actors since the vast majority are groups of local players, namely tribes and militia.
Since the summer of 2014, political power has been split between two rival governments in Tripoli and in Tobruk, with the latter having been recognized by the international community before the creation of the Presidency Council in December 2015 with the Libyan Political Agreement (LPA). Currently, the country is torn between the GNA – presided over by the Presidential Council – and the Tobruk-based House of Representatives (HoR).
The Tobruk parliament was supposed to be the legitimate legislative authority under the LPA but has so far failed to pass a valid constitutional amendment. Instead, HoR endorsed the rival government of Abdullah al-Thinni, which operates from the eastern Libyan city of Bayda. Tobruk and Bayda authorities have been aligned with Haftar.
The schizophrenia of the international community
While world powers are divided in their support for war-torn Libya, the U.N. Security Council has failed over and over again to release a unified statement on the situation in Libya, let alone form a resolution. “We are facing schizophrenia in the Security Council,” the U.N. official said in a bid to underscore the divided nature of the council.
The members of the Security Council have different diplomatic and political interests in the Libyan conflict. “When the Security Council is divided, our job is much harder, and it gets more difficult for us to speak the language of the UNSC [U.N. Security Council] and the Libyan people,” the official said.
When pointing out the deadlock in Libya, the U.N. official did not name any specific council members. However, immediately after the breakout of aggression on Tripoli, Russia blocked the release of a U.N. statement on Libya. Furthermore, in late April, the U.K.’s demand for a cease-fire in Libya faced opposition from Russia and the U.S., raising doubts about prospects for a draft resolution to halt the bloodshed in Tripoli.
The U.N. supports the creation of a buffer zone to halt further escalation of the conflict and its humanitarian cost. But this solution depends on a more productive and constructive Security Council, which is far from reality under current circumstances.
Libyan conflict opens space for terrorist groups
Groups fighting in Libya, mainly GNA and LNA forces, accuse each other of supporting terror groups, including al-Qaida and Daesh. When it first started countrywide aggression in Benghazi and moved into Derna, Haftar’s main argument to convince the international community was the fight against Daesh.
After the Tripoli aggression, U.S. President Donald Trump even praised Haftar for “his contribution to counterterrorism and securing Libya’s oil forces.” A White House statement on the Trump-Haftar call said on April 20 Trump “recognized Field Marshal Haftar’s significant role in fighting terrorism and securing Libya’s oil resources, and the two discussed a shared vision for Libya’s transition to a stable, democratic political system.”
Trump’s “welcoming” of Haftar’s move and his attribution of a political authority to the Libyan military strongman by engaging in diplomatic dialogue signaled a complete reversal of U.S. policy in Libya and expanded the camp of “Haftar supporters,” despite popular outrage against the commander.
Local officials and Tripoli-based authorities representing the GNA have in return accused Haftar and his forces of supporting Daesh terrorists and argue that their forces in Derna have repelled Daesh.
“If Haftar continues to rule and attack Libyan towns, Daesh is likely to remain. Haftar military forces and Daesh jointly attack Libyan civilians. Daesh terror has become an excuse for Haftar to attack the Libyan people. In Derna, the local people have fought Daesh,” said Awad Belghassem, member of the Derna municipal council.
