Around the halls: Experts analyze the Libya conflict, 10 years on
Jeffrey Feltman, Federica Saini Fasanotti, Pavel Baev, Courtney Freer, and Ranj Alaaldin
Wednesday,
February 17, 2021
February 17 marks the 10-year anniversary of the
uprising in Libya that ousted long-time leader Moammar Gadhafi. In the years
since, the country has descended into civil war. The conflict is characterized
in key ways by warring nonstate armed actors, many of which are backed by
foreign governments.
Below, Brookings experts on Libya briefly reflect on
the key dynamics they see as critical at this juncture.
Jeffrey Feltman, Visiting Fellow in the Center for Security, Strategy, and Technology: One year ago — with Tripoli besieged — few would have envisioned that, by the 10th anniversary of the uprising against Moammar Gadhafi on February 17, a three-track, United Nations-facilitated process would create the most promising moment in Libya in years. The next five weeks are critical, as I write with former Acting Special Representative of the U.N. Secretary-General Stephanie Williams in another piece. If deadlines are met and spoilers sidelined, Libyans will have a unified executive authority for the first time since 2014 and national elections on December 24, 2021, the 70th anniversary of Libya’s independence.
Astonishingly, 71%
of Libyans polled express satisfaction with the February 5
selection by the 74-member Libyan
Political Dialogue Forum (LPDF) of an interim executive
authority. Over 1.7 million Libyans (a quarter of the population) participated
virtually, as 45 candidates answered questions submitted by the public. This
novel transparency doomed some high-profile candidates: House of
Representatives Speaker Agila Saleh was asked for a response to western Libyans
about his support for the assault on Tripoli, and he shrugged that “everyone
makes mistakes.” Abdul Hamid Mohammed Dbeibah, the prime minister-designate
from the winning slate, has 21 days to propose a cabinet, and the House of
Representatives an additional 21 days for confirmation.
Political progress derived from success in the
security track. In October, generals affiliated with both eastern and western
authorities (the “5+5”) expanded a de facto truce around Sirte into a
nationwide ceasefire. The economic track has, among other things, unified
exchange rates, approved a single national budget for the first time since
2014, and restored oil production.
The United Nations Support Mission for Libya (UNSMIL),
and especially Williams (whose tenure ended February 5), deserve credit for
creative facilitation in all three tracks.
Momentum, however, can stall. Potential internal and
external spoilers are numerous. If Washington puts its muscle behind the
current process, Libya might become a positive story. Democrats in Washington,
burned by the politicization of the 2012 Benghazi murders, may recoil from
engaging on Libya. But a resumption of chaos in Libya would affect global oil
markets, divide European allies (via migration), complicate counterterrorism
efforts, pit our Arab and Turkish partners against each other, deepen schisms
inside NATO between France and Turkey, and provide an opening for Russian
expansionism. As when President Thomas Jefferson deployed the Marines to battle
Barbary pirates on “the shores of Tripoli” in 1805, so today: We have strategic
interests in Libya.
Federica Saini Fasanotti, Nonresident Senior Fellow in the Center for Security, Strategy, and Technology: On February 5 in Geneva, after weeks of negotiations among the LPDF — comprised of Libyan representatives from all over the country and under the blessing of UNSMIL — Abdul Hamid Dbeibah and Mohammad Menfi were selected as prime minister and head of the Presidential Council, respectively. The ceasefire agreement signed by Libya’s opposing factions last October has made possible the U.N.-backed political talks.
Despite these encouraging developments, deep-rooted socio-political
tensions — rooted in Libyan soil and exacerbated by foreign actors — represent
a serious challenge on the path to diplomacy. The newly appointed U.N. Special
Representative for Libya Jan Kubis faces an extraordinary difficult set of
tasks.
With a weak government, a constellation of militias
(often with criminal characteristics), and four years of American absence,
Libya has become fertile for foreign competitors like Turkey, Russia, Egypt,
Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Many of them have militias on the
ground, in spite of the January request by Libyans for their withdrawal. The
Russians and Turks, in fact, have strengthened their positions, and nothing
suggests that they will leave.
Thus, in the face of some political improvements,
military confrontation remains possible. That would be extraordinarily
dangerous for the democratic process, with new national elections slated for
December 24.
The former acting special envoy for Libya, Stephanie
Williams, with her resilience, has shown that it is possible to proceed towards
stabilization. A strong stance is now needed from the United States and, above
all, a serious strategy implemented by a muscular diplomacy.
Pavel Baev, Nonresident Senior Fellow in the Center on the United States and Europe: The United States should retain a stake in the international management of the Libyan conflict for many reasons, and one of them is that Russia is deeply engaged. Moscow is pretending to act as a key peace-promoter, but in fact is acting as a spoiler.
For President Vladimir Putin, Gadhafi’s horrible end
remains a recurrent reminder of the risk of violent uprisings, which was
allowed to materialize in 2011 by the bad decision of then-president Dmitry
Medvedev to grant NATO the right to execute an air campaign with the U.N.
approval.
Russia began a hybrid intervention in
Libya in 2018 — a reflection of its geopolitical ambitions, but also its urge
to “undo” the mistake of allowing the West to unleash uncontrollable violent
chaos in the country years earlier. Unlike the official military intervention
in Syria that Moscow launched in 2015, the operation in Libya involved only the
deployment of about 1,500
mercenaries from the so-called “Wagner group.” This approach
was less costly (and funded partly
by the UAE) and entirely deniable.
Russia’s experience with this low-risk
power projection is, nevertheless, decidedly mixed. The mercenaries added
enough capabilities for the motley forces of General Khalifa Haftar to launch
an offensive on Tripoli, but when Turkey decided to back the besieged
Government of National Accord (GNA) with its own limited intervention in early
2020, the stalled offensive turned
into a rout. Russia has made an unofficial deal with Turkey, and the
hostilities have remained frozen along the Sirte-Jufra
line. The squadron of
Russian fighters deployed to provide air support to the Wagner forces, which
retain control over several oil fields, has remained idle.
In the current diplomatic efforts at rebuilding
Libya’s governance, Moscow’s reliance on the Wagner mercenaries compromises its
claims of impartiality and exposes its interest in manipulating rather than
ending the war.
Courtney Freer (@courtneyfreer), Nonresident Fellow in the Center for Middle East Policy: One development we’ve seen in Libya over the past few years is increased international involvement in the crisis. In particular, the rift between Qatar and Turkey on one side, and the UAE, Bahrain, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia on the other has been transposed onto the Libyan context. While the U.N. ordered that the UAE-backed General Khalifa Haftar and the Qatar- and Turkey-backed Government of National Accord (GNA) withdraw their proxy forces by January 23, it did not take place (at least not on that schedule). In fact, recent U.N. reports charge that Emirati involvement continues via Sudanese proxy fighters.
John C. Whitehead Visiting Fellow in International Diplomacy - Foreign Policy, Center for Security, Strategy,
and Technology
Nonresident Senior Fellow - Foreign Policy, Center for Security, Strategy,
and Technology
Research Professor
Nonresident Fellow - Foreign Policy, Center for Middle East Policy
Visiting Fellow - Brookings Doha Center
Nonresident Fellow - Foreign Policy, Center for Middle East Policy
In its domestic and foreign policy, Emirati leadership
is increasingly seeking to repress Islamist actors. Its support for certain
proxy forces in Libya illustrates that, and this is something the Emiratis have
pursued in Sudan, as well. This approach was easier to sustain under a Trump
administration concerned with transactional relationships rather than more
normatively-oriented U.S. involvement in the Middle East. The Biden
administration now needs to take seriously the consequences that increased
involvement in the region’s domestic political issues have — both for direct
American interests and for the the broader, longer-term stability and security
of affected countries. In Libya, a U.S. absence has meant that Emirati and
other international interests have become increasingly entangled on the ground.
Ranj Alaaldin (@RanjAlaaldin), Visiting Fellow in the Brookings Doha Center and Nonresident Fellow in the Foreign Policy program: I had the privilege of visiting Libya during the early stages of the uprising. Speaking to Libyans in Benghazi, members of the opposition, and the revolutionaries undertaking the battle, the revolutionary spirit was palpable, including a sense of optimism about the future of the country.
While Libya is engulfed in instability today, it is
important to not lose sight of the real possibility that Libya would be in a
far worse position had Gadhafi remained in power, and one only needs to look at
Syria to have a striking sense of where the country may have otherwise headed.
Indeed, the dismantling of Gadhafi’s weapons of mass destruction program in the
years leading up to the Arab uprisings — thanks to the efforts of former
British prime minister, Tony Blair — was critical to preventing a form of mass
atrocity that Syrians were not so fortunate to escape. No-fly zones can work,
as can Western efforts to remove the ability of brutal despots to carry out
humanitarian atrocities.
However, the international community and their Libyan
partners failed to accomplish what should arguably be the most pressing
objective in the aftermath of any conflict: the disarmament of militia groups,
a prelude to establishing a professionalized security force that manages the
fallout from a major military conflict, prevents the proliferation of arms and
additional militia groups, and enables pathways for political stability.
The aftermath of the uprising was not followed with a
viable power-sharing arrangement. The rush to hold elections prior to securing
reconciliation exacerbated divisions and entrenched the prevailing military
balance of power. The opportunity to build on the success of the intervention
to establish a success story out of the post-conflict aftermath was missed. The
consequences have been profound and reverberate today through civil strife, an
internationalized proxy war, and the demarcation of territorial boundaries by rival
factions.
No comments:
Post a Comment