Can the Libyans find peace in Geneva?
After the first round of talks earlier this month left observers cautiously optimistic, key Libyan stakeholders were back in Geneva today to continue to negotiate a peaceful resolution to the bloody conflict in the country.
The main objective of the Geneva talks is creation of a national unity government, as well as solidification of the ceasefire declared by a number of armed groups following the first session on January 14-15. A boycott of the negotiations by the Tripoli-based General National Congress (GNC) and sporadic outbreak of violence in Eastern and Southern parts of the country has perturbed the meager successes of the first round of negotiations, but the majority of delegates are now back at the talks.
The UN-sponsored mediation track still faces a number of difficulties. The most serious is the failure to bring all the relevant actors to the table. The GNC boycott means that only one of the two main political parties to the conflict, the Tobruk-based government, is fully represented. Tripoli is indirectly represented through a number of boycotting members of the Tobruk-based House of Representatives and other civil society members (including Nihad Maiteeq , the sister of former prime minister Ahmad Maiteeq). There have also been consultations between UN envoy Bernardino Leon and the GNC leadership. Nonetheless, the lack of formal participation by the GNC arguably harms the legitimacy of any agreement in Geneva – particularly any agreement about a national unity government.
A related problem is the perceived preference by the international community for the Tobruk-based government. The basis for this preference is an election in which fewer than 20% of Libyans participated, the results of which were voided by the Libyan Supreme Court. That government’s close relationship with general Khalifa Haftar, whose military campaign against the entire spectrum of Libyan Islamists has greatly contributed to the polarization of Libyan politics, makes this one-sided recognition difficult to defend.
Jason Pack, a Cambridge University researcher and analyst of Libyan political affairs, points to the problems of this one-sided approach in a recent New York Times Op-Ed:
Western governments are reluctant to acknowledge the implications of the Supreme Court ruling because many of them are secretly cheering for the Tobruk faction to either reconquer the country or dominate a national unity government. After all, the Tobruk government claims to be fighting Ansar al-Sharia in Benghazi — the very same group that killed the American ambassador, Christopher Stevens, in 2012. Perversely, the West’s ability to act as a neutral party and promote compromise is hindered by the fact that it has already recognized Tobruk as Libya’s sole sovereign.
Western backing of the Tobruk regime also seems to rest on a simplistic narrative of the Libyan conflict as a clash between republican secularists and radical Islamists. This binary perspective fails to identify the multiple forces that operate and gain from the conflict and, as one analyst has pointed out, empowers the hardliners on either side that have most to lose from a negotiated settlement.
Even more problematic than Western one-sidedness, however, is the strong support afforded to the local adversaries by regional allies. The Egyptians and Emiratis support Khalifa Haftar’s anti-Islamist campaign. Qatar and Turkey support the Islamists in Tripoli. This has aggravated the conflict, fueling a destructive polarization of Libyan politics. Instead of bringing the parties to the table, the foreign support has emboldened these forces, while simultaneously eroding the legitimacy of both parties in the eyes of ordinary Libyans. Further military support is likely to aggravate the situation further. The dangers of a longer term proxy war in Libya should not be taken lightly.
In spite of the monumental difficulties that the UN mediation efforts are facing, some indicators point in the right direction. Bernardino Leon and his team at the UN Support Mission to Libya (UNSMIL) seem to have made up for the GNC’s non-participation with the engagement of a wide spectrum of political actors and civil society representatives. Following the current round, representatives of Libyan municipal councils will meet on Wednesday to discuss confidence building measures at the community level. Although no date has been provided, it is hoped that this will be followed by discussions between key militia leaders. This multi-track approach may help the UN instigate results that can be implemented on the ground.
The political and economic situation should provide a sense of urgency that may help ripen the conflict for a negotiated settlement. The bloody fighting that characterized much of the second half of 2014 has now turned into a stalemate, with no one side appearing to have a decisive advantage. Tripoli and Tobruk are rapidly running out of money. In both cities the politicians know that Libyan state revenue is the glue that holds their militias together. Once these revenues disappear, many militias might find it more advantageous to pursue their own agendas, further fragmenting the Libyan political landscape.
The great challenges of the current Libyan conflict cannot be resolved in a few days in Geneva. But progress in the talks could stop the situation from deteriorating.
RSS - Posts
