Libya remains adrift – The Frontier Post

Hafed Al-Ghwell

As the UN Security Council once again approaches the Libya quagmire, the pervasive feeling of deja vu is hard to ignore. The upcoming renewal of the mandate of the UN Support Mission in Libya appears more mandatory than innovative, casting doubt on the council’s willingness to tackle deep-seated political and security issues with new vigor. Last October, as Security Council members gathered for a new bimonthly briefing, the deadlock in Libya continues, mired in a deep chasm of division and dysfunction. The Security Council’s routine but essential procedures often feel like an eerie refrain, rehashing the discord between Libya’s competing mafia-like factions without offering a decisive intervention to break the impasse.
At the heart of the political standstill in Libya is the ongoing struggle between the UN-recognized Government of National Unity in Tripoli and the eastern-based Government of National Stability under the control of Khalifa Haftar. This schism has recently been further fueled by a struggle for control of the Central Bank of Libya, which extends beyond mere governance and into a tug-of-war for financial supremacy.
August witnessed the provocative move by the House of Representatives to declare the Government of National Stability as the legitimate administration of Libya, coupled with a bold decree by the Head of the Presidential Council, Mohammed Yunus Al-Menfi, with Sadiq Al -Kabir, the long-serving governor of the Central Bank of Libya, was dismissed. These unilateral acts have not only deepened the political divide, but also led to a near collapse of oil exports – Libya’s vital and only economic artery.
But as the Security Council braces to deliberate again, there is a palpable impatience, asking – albeit rhetorically – whether these meetings will produce a ‘grand strategy’ to finally close the ‘Libya file’, or will only continue an all too familiar cycle. of superficial solutions aimed at maintaining the status quo.
Amid this, the clumsy involvement of the broader international community adds another layer of complexity. Behind the facade of concern, major regional powers are investing less in real stabilization and more in their own strategic interests. These external actors have successfully established spheres of influence within Libya, securing their geopolitical, regional, economic and military positions.
For these powers, an unstable but manageable Libya acts as a buffer against larger regional disruptions, making the crisis more palatable. The playbook offers public support for some kind of “peace” and contemplations of stability, even as meddlesome Libyans remain quite content with an “invisible occupation and division” that benefits individual geopolitical interests.
This paradox of intervention – in which, under the guise of concern and sometimes mild outrage, lies a dogged pursuit of short-sighted, short-term strategic interests, dependent on a continued impasse in Libya – kills any urgency for real reconciliation and sets up the failure of the international community to attention. to provide coherent, effective solutions. Even a serious commitment to forensically investigate why the goal of a stable, united, secure and sovereign Libya remains ever elusive for the UN.
In October, as the Security Council met for the ritual renewal of yet another mandate for the UN Support Mission in Libya, the veneer of international diplomacy seemed increasingly hollow. The UN’s once robust role as mediator, referee and legitimator has been reduced to a mere rubber stamp, caught in a quagmire of inefficiency, inertia and dysfunction. For example, despite many rounds of talks facilitated by UN missions that culminated in the appointment of Naji Mohammed Issa Belqasem as Governor of the Central Bank of Libya, the reality is that such agreements often crumble under the weight of Libya’s entrenched power struggles.
Meanwhile, Libyans themselves appear distant and unenthusiastic about the country’s gridlocked and highly dangerous political arena, an echo of the deep scars left in the aftermath of the 2011 civil war. The promises of pluralistic democracy and personal freedoms are a distant memory memories as ongoing humanitarian crises reveal systemic failures.
One such crisis, the catastrophic flood in Derna last September, which forced more than 44,000 people to flee their homes and left some 250,000 in urgent need of assistance, is the biggest example yet illustrating these shortcomings. Political corruption and competition for reconstruction funds have only deepened discord, exacerbating the already palpable public apathy.
But even as political elites bicker and an ineffective UN repeatedly fails to broker lasting peace, the specter of a new round of the ongoing civil war from 2011 onwards looms large. This misery is compounded by the prospect of Libya becoming a permanent playground for middle powers and criminal organizations seeking to exert their own influence, further exacerbating a country still struggling after 2011 with its own unfulfilled ambitions, however minimal these have become. destabilized.
The international community’s disturbing, model-setting acquiescence to the status quo in Libya is already fueling a narrative of increased tolerance for shortcomings – provided they do not lead to all-out war. While avoiding a full-blown relapse into conflict might evoke a collective sigh of relief, this “false stability” hides much deeper problems. After all, the current peace is an illusion and masks a consolidation of power by various actors who use this period to enrich themselves through corruption and uncontrolled state conquest.
Libya’s divided governments and mafia-like factions, meanwhile, have made an art of manipulating public institutions like the Central Bank and the National Oil Co., as well as key assets like oil fields to line their pockets, sowing bitter seeds among an audience that can only watch as prospects diminish with each new headline or crisis. This dynamic illustrates a peculiar form of helplessness that not only blesses the cannibalization of Libya, but also reinforces the disenfranchisement of its citizens, setting an example around the world of the failure of the international community and its endless verbal diarrhea of statements, press releases and declarations. , and resolutions.
Indeed, as political actors expand their hold, ordinary Libyans have less and less to lose, increasing the risk of popular backlash despite widespread arms trafficking in Libya’s vast black markets. Recent clashes between rival militias in Tripoli and UNSMIL’s concerns about the threat of violence show how quickly the veneer of stability can easily and quickly be shattered. The longer this state of inertia continues, the more likely it is that the Libyans will take matters into their own hands. This is not a sustainable model and should not be the legacy of the international intervention in Libya.
If real progress is to be made, the UN Security Council must confront a sobering truth: the cyclical renewal of mandates and superficial agreements does little to address the root causes of Libya’s misery and only detracts from what is happening. the credibility of the UN is still left elsewhere. Without a decisive, coordinated and sincere effort to implement lasting solutions, the cycle of dysfunction will continue – much to the detriment of Libyans and, ultimately, another nail in the already precarious state of global stability.