The West’s approach to the Libyan crisis has relied on an oversimplified narrative, which sees a legitimate anti-Islamist government in Tobruk facing off against an Islamist administration in Tripoli. This obscures reality and has not prevented the fighting descending into a zero-sum grudge match unrelated to religion. In my latest op-ed for the New York Times I outline key steps the international community should take to ensure that the latest round of dialogue in Geneva succeeds in creating the right incentives for lasting peace.
All parties know that these talks are the last chance for a nonmilitary solution. If dialogue fails, the country will be de facto partitioned and the war over resources will resume with increased intensity. If that happens, Italy’s prime minister, Matteo Renzi, has threatened to push for a peacekeeping force.
If the international community wishes to give both sides the right incentives to reach a lasting deal, Western democracies must reconsider the logic behind their policies. The Nov. 6, 2014, ruling by the Tripoli-based Libyan Supreme Court provides the perfect pretext. It stated that the constitutional amendment giving rise to the House of Representatives was procedurally invalid, that the June 2014 election should never have happened, and that consequently the ensuing body cannot be vested with sovereignty.
Western nations have barely responded — meekly pointing out that they are studying the decision and that the court’s ruling was made under duress. But Islamist militia pressure on the court does not necessarily invalidate its carefully worded opinion, which states that neither the House, nor its opponents, nor the expired Parliament, are to be considered Libya’s sovereign authority.
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.
I conclude that:
The door is still open for Western nations to formally withdraw their recognition of the House of Representatives in light of the Supreme Court decision. Because the Islamist-aligned “government” in Tripoli is fracturing by the day and possesses an even more tenuous claim to legitimacy than its rival, such a move would leave Libya without any sovereign authority.
Western nations should make clear that they will not recognize any sovereign authority if negotiations fail to produce a national unity government committed to completing the constitutional process. They should also take strong steps to prevent regional interference while simultaneously inviting both sides’ external patrons to the table.
I also received these comments from Fergal Hatchell in response to my NYT article. Fergal spent time working in Misrata last year with both businessmen and militiamen alike, all of whom he says were extremely decent to him.
It was my experience that the bulk of Misratans love their families and wanted only to live in peace. However, now they want vengeance, as you rightly state. I'm in constant contact with lots of friends there and I detect this in what they say.
If the UN, or somebody, doesn't do what you say i.e. stop recognising Tobruk and give more leverage to the Supreme Court's decision, we are only prolonging the agony on the Libyan people. Hopefully, your vision of the future for Libya will be seen by someone in authority. It's the only lasting solution.