Related Articles
All past efforts at a political resolution have floundered because the various parties supporting one side or the other in Libya’s civil war have failed to understand the Libyan socio-political scene.
Ziad Akl*
Libya remains a platform for regional conflicts in the Mediterranean and North Africa. Several actors, mainly Egypt, Turkey, the US, France, Italy, Greece, Cyprus and the UAE have been involved with the Libyan conundrum in recent weeks. Many diplomatic efforts were made, and the interests of both Egypt and the United States managed to spur a ceasefire between the warring parties in the country. But due to contrasts within the Libyan interior, the ceasefire pact did not last more than 48 hours. It was broken Sunday night, 23 August. This means that the matter is not related to international efforts seeking coexistence within Libya; it is rather a matter of a complicated situation between the different Libyan parties.
Conflicting socio-political positions inside Libya are the major source of turbulence in the scene. The fact that neither party acknowledges the legitimacy of the other, means opportunities for a political settlement are very thin. Regional powers try to exert conciliatory influence, but domestic equations look over-riding. Several attempts were made, and failed, to end the contentious state of conflict. However, regardless of what the others might say, the role which Egypt has exercised in the Libyan conflict was prompted the protection of its National security interests.
It looks immensely difficult to currently discuss a political settlement in Libya. There are domestic differences and regional competition over influence in the country. Both Egypt and Turkey remain in restraint regarding direct military intervention. Few are the times where such political situations reoccur. But this proves it is a matter of a local context that regional and domestic powers do not fully understand.
The ceasefire was broken, not only because legitimacy is not mutually recognised, but also because of the lack of a connection between the East and the West within dual international communications. Neither partner wants to defy the international community. They attempt to prove that they are pro political consensus, while their actions prove otherwise. There is a cost to be paid in international relations, of which Libyan political elites are afraid, because they know they are culpable. In the end, there is a limit to what the international community can do to create peace conducive climate to which the warring parties do not subscribe.
This leads to another important question regarding any political settlement in Libya. According to the prevailing reality so far, both parties have legitimacy; the House of Representatives in Tobruk, and the State Council in Tripoli. Both political bodies enjoy international legitimacy, and manage to contain a set of local, regional and international allies to uphold the various interests they have. But there is no political consensus or military supremacy that makes one party more powerful than the other. The balance of power between the warring parties is not helping.
The question is how can Libya overcome the current situation of political confrontation and lack of coordination? The answer lies in the idea of building new domestic political associations, backed and supported by regional ones. As Turkey attempt to split the Arab world over the Libyan file, Egypt, the UAE and Saudi Arabia must work out a framework of regional cooperation inside Libya, to ensure that the interests involved are being safeguarded and guaranteed by regional actors who are concerned by the Libyan conflict.
The vulnerability of the ceasefire is mainly due to the total absence of political solutions. And, because actors and parties supporting one side or the other move to raise the military capacities of that side. The international community needs to take into consideration the context of the Libyan conflict before it starts to theorise about it. Otherwise, we will be back to square one, trying to find the basis for a political agreement. Past attempts by the UN and other international organisations resulted in failure on the ground, mainly because of a lack of political vision and practical understanding of the Libyan interior.
There is a need for a new the mechanism involving neighbouring countries, and a dire need for Egypt, Algeria and Tunisia to reach a mutual understanding on the Libya file.
International alliances and regional ones interested Libya are still not effective on the ground, mainly because the interest of each actor is what determines its patterns of action.
Egypt remains the most concerned actor on the scene, and it has to further develop the efficiency of the role it practises in the context of the conflict between East and West Libya.
*The writer is a senior researcher and director of the Programme for Mediterranean and North African Studies at the Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies.
From: Al-Ahram Weekly
