Libya’s internal divisions require solutions designed for the country, rather than influenced by external interests. Many Libyans distrust elections proposed by the West, viewing them as further legitimizing foreign-controlled governance. The UN’s repeated attempts have failed to address the historical roots of division or the realities faced by the Libyan people. Meanwhile, global priorities have shifted away from Libya, exacerbating existing fragmentation while local governance struggles continue to intensify.
Libya’s internal divisions necessitate solutions specifically tailored for the country, rather than strategies influenced by external powers. While the West emphasizes elections as a means to promote democracy, many Libyans view these attempts as efforts to uphold a government that prioritizes foreign interests over their own needs for stability and governance. Given the current instability, including a lack of constitutional frameworks and pervasive corruption, Libyans are skeptical about the potential for fair elections.
The West’s focus on defending democracy has overshadowed its previous failure to stabilize Libya after interventions that shifted from protecting civilians from Gaddafi to regime change. In response, the U.N. is again being called upon to facilitate democratic change through elections, yet such efforts have proven ineffective and unlikely to succeed soon.
Historical precedents show that external actors often approach Libya’s situation with self-serving interests. This pattern mirrors past discussions surrounding Libya’s fate and the motivations rooted in national and regional agendas, as was the case after WWII. For example, Egyptian diplomat Azzam Pasha’s views emphasized national interests in Libya, mirroring today’s international negotiations regarding the country’s future.
Current motivations for international involvement in Libya center around three primary concerns: firstly, Europe’s anxiety over illegal migration through Libya, which poses security and socioeconomic challenges; secondly, fears about deteriorating political conditions in North Africa impacting regional economic interests; and thirdly, the risk of terrorism thriving in a chaotic governance structure.
These international concerns often lead to the establishment of a central authority in Libya, regardless of its legitimacy or alignment with the populace’s needs, driving poorly devised proposals by the U.N. that have failed to bridge divides in the country, exacerbating existing fragmentation.
Five reasons hinder effective state-building efforts in Libya. Firstly, unresolved historical divisions play a critical role in the failures of numerous U.N.-backed roadmaps, as seen in the political stalemate around the unheld elections in December 2022. Secondly, local political and security actors exploit these divisions for personal gain, fostering a mix of kleptocracy and militia control detrimental to governance.
Thirdly, decades of authoritarian rule have left Libyans struggling with basic survival rather than engaging in political activism, stifling potential movements for change. Fourthly, shifting global priorities and conflicts have diverted much-needed attention and resources from Libya, despite Western concern over rising non-Western influence in the region.
Lastly, many in Libya perceive Western governments as lacking credibility and moral authority in promoting democratic reform, worsened by the perception of Western complicity in the humanitarian crises affecting the Arab populace. This view, intensified by the West’s historical support for autocratic regimes, fuels skepticism toward Western-led democratic initiatives.
Since 2020, Libya has essentially evolved into a de facto two-state system, with each region governed separately. Despite initial efforts post-civil war aimed at unification, recent reconstruction initiatives have merely reinforced existing divisions, as new funding has deepened the split between East and West.
International players like China and Russia are increasingly engaging with Libya, prioritizing economic objectives over concerns about human migration or border security, thereby undermining U.S. and European interests. Concurrently, Libyans are warming to the idea of self-determination, even as the legitimacy of the U.N.’s involvement comes into question due to a lack of effective outcomes.
Recent political instability has amplified distrust in the governance of Prime Minister Abdul Hamid Dbeibah, whose administration faces allegations of corruption. Discontent with his leadership could escalate tensions and potentially lead to military confrontations aimed at maintaining authority amid public outcry.
The recent appointment of Hanna Serwaa Tetteh as the new head of UNSMIL reflects ongoing international power dynamics, where foreign interests dominate discussions concerning Libya. Moving forward, solutions must shift toward recognizing and addressing Libya’s unique historical context, promoting a more genuine partnership where both Libyan and international needs are considered.
Libya’s complex situation necessitates tailored solutions that prioritize local needs over external interests. The historical divisions among Libyans remain unresolved, and repeated international efforts have been ineffective due to a focus on self-serving agendas. With current governance facing increasing challenges and public resentment toward foreign interference, a transition toward a more locally-driven and historically-aware strategy is critical for Libya’s future stability and unity.
Original Source: www.atlanticcouncil.org
