Dr N. Janardhan :
When Nato-backed efforts ousted Muammar Gaddafi in February 2011, it was hoped that Libya would make a transition to Western-style democracy. Instead, it has descended into conflict, chaos and civil war – akin to the state of affairs in many African countries.
The turmoil is not only due to warring factions within and between their international backers, but also due to the expansionist designs of radical groups that are attempting to manipulate the power vacuum to challenge and ‘terrorise’ the West.
As has been the case in most countries that have undergone political change in the Middle East, Libya’s failure is a combination of two factors. One, the country’s “tortured history of fractured national identity”; and two, the international community’s – especially the West’s – inability to facilitate the required processes for nation building after decades of dictatorial rule.
It is ironical that Libya continues to experience a similar flux that Iraq experienced after Saddam Hussein’s ouster in 2003. And the international community was and is no better prepared now than it was then to deal with such crises.
At the heart of the Libyan disorder are two groups. First, the internationally-recognised Tobruk-based government made up of the House of Representatives elected in 2014; this group is backed by the Libyan National Army led by Khalifa Haftar. A controversial Gaddafi ally-turned-foe, Haftar was formally appointed commander of the army a few days ago, much to the annoyance of the rival group.
The rival camp is the ‘illegitimate’ Tripoli-based left-overs of the General National Congress. This is the post-Gaddafi interim parliament that was replaced by the House of Representatives in Tobruk. The Tripoli faction is called ‘Libya Dawn’. It is also supported by the militias from the other important Libyan city of Misrata. The religious group include Ansar Al Sharia, Al Qaeda, and Daesh or their affiliates. They rebelled against the present parliament after losing a UN-supervised election with a meager 20 per cent turnout. As a reaction, they formed the Libya Dawn coalition, which seized Tripoli, forcing the new government to flee to the eastern city of Tobruk. Fighting has since raged across the country.
The competition intensified after the Tripoli-based Supreme Court ruled this parliament illegal. The Tobruk faction rejected the verdict, claiming it was biased and influenced by the militias in Tripoli. Thus, Libya has been torn between two rival parliaments. Each of the opposing parliaments has, in turn, chosen an administration, leaving the country and its people with two governments. Each side has declared the other to be unconstitutional and a battle wages for legitimacy, causing a civil war
These competing governments are seeking to consolidate political power through the takeover of oil fields. Thousands of civilians are dead and tens of thousands rendered homeless. As a result, the “river of blood” that Gaddafi had promised when his rule was challenged is, ironically, beginning to flow now. The UN special envoy to Libya, Bernardino Leon, recently briefed the UN Security Council about the threat of the country’s disintegration. He also warned that Daesh was capitalising as a result of the political disunity.
( Dr N. Janardhan is a UAE-based political analyst, author on Gulf affairs and honorary fellow of the University of Exeter, UK)
The complication, however, is the lack of consensus on conflict resolution not only within Libya, but among the international community as well. The first camp has two factions. Egypt is in the forefront of one of them after its Coptic Christian citizens were beheaded in Libya a few weeks ago. This faction is supported by most of the Gulf countries and favours a military solution. The beneficiary of this international support is the Tobruk-based government. The stakes are high for Egypt because it shares a 1,100-kilometre border with Libya, making it vulnerable to chaos, including mischief by radical groups.
The second camp – led by the Western countries under the auspices of the United Nations – is pushing for a diplomatic solution among the warring factions.
Unfortunately, the role of international community is pushing the Libyan rivals to adopt ideologically more hardline positions. It is encouraging both to believe that prolonging the conflict, rather than accepting a deal, could work in their favour.
These anarchic goings-on mean that Libya is a long way from both what it was under Gaddafi and the hopes of the original revolutionaries who championed his ouster.
It could also mean any or all of the following – another example of the failure of the Arab uprising; the evolution and acceptance of political Islam is far more complex than it was first assumed; human nature puts self or group interests ahead of national interest during times of crises; and the West has been and is still naive in believing that democracy is the best solution to Middle East’s woes, thereby creating more problems than solving existing ones.
