Libya: damned if we do and damned if we don’t
Soldiers of the Libyan UN-backed government forces gather on a street in Aziziya, Warshaffana, Libya, on Nov. 10, 2017 hours after taking control of the largest military camp in the area. Picture by Hamza Turkia/Xinhua News Agency/PA Images. All rights reserved.Frustrated
by the lack of media time given to local Libyan reactions to
international actions, I have just finished a project
funded by the Remote
Control Project to interview a wide range of local
stakeholders (including civil society activists, businessmen,
officials, Islamist leaders, former ministers and former fighters) to
elicit views on the less-well known but ongoing international
military intervention in the Libyan conflict since the NATO campaign
to topple Gadhafi ended in 2011.
The
responses highlighted the “damned if you do, damned if you don’t”
dilemma faced by governments currently seeking to contain the spread
of violent extremist groups in the country and protect their own
security. On the one hand, foreign intervention has generally
elicited a negative response in Libya, where pride in national
sovereignty and mistrust of international intentions run deep. Then,
on the other, there is a keen sense of abandonment following the
ousting of Gaddafi – when the international community left the
country vulnerable to meddling by a wide range of local and regional
actors.
How to resolve
the conflict in Libya remains one of the most difficult and important
questions facing policy-makers today. The country has been mired in
crisis ever since the toppling of the former Libyan leader Colonel
Muammar Gadhafi in 2011. Beyond the humanitarian costs of the ongoing
turmoil, the boost in available weapons
has fuelled conflicts across the continent. Libya’s
proximity to Europe has also raised fears about rising
immigrant flows; while, the Libyan
links to the Manchester bomber highlighted the dangers
of leaving extremism to blossom in the country. As AFRICOM
commander Thomas Waldhauser recently stated:
“instability in Libya and North Africa may be the most significant
near-term threat to US and allies’ interests on the continent.”
Foreign intervention appears to be inadvertently exacerbating divisions on the ground
It
is, perhaps, unsurprising then that many western countries discreetly
continued military operations in the country after the official end
of the NATO mission in October 2011. However, their interests and
motives – particularly their perceived focus on countering
terrorism over the broader stability of the country – have been a
cause of contention. Alongside diplomatic
efforts to build support for the Government of
National Accord (GNA) (created with the intention of forging a
consensus ruling body in Libya – an aspiration that has failed),
there are reports that the US,
France,
Italy
and the UK
have or have had Special Forces on the ground in the country. This
engagement peaked after 2015 when, so called, Islamic State (IS)
declared the coastal town of Sirte as its Libyan headquarters –
just 396 miles off the coast of Italy.
As
chaos and division in the country continue to increase, foreign
intervention appears to be inadvertently exacerbating divisions on
the ground, adding further layers of controversy and suspicion to an
already complex situation.
Damned
if you do
While there was
an uneasy local acceptance of the 2011 intervention to bring down
Gaddafi, subsequent foreign interventions have prompted shrill
reactions inside Libya. For example, in
July 2016, after it was revealed that French Special Forces
were operating in the east of the country, hundreds of Libyans took
to the streets of Tripoli, as well as other western towns to condemn
foreign involvement, holding up placards that proclaimed, "Get
your hands off Libya" and "No French intervention."
In my own
research, many respondents remained concerned about intervention in
the country and many believed international actors had ulterior
motives. One person summed this up when they stated: “Everyone
knows that the international community didn’t intervene for good
reasons. They are trying to prolong the conflict in order to benefit
from it.”
Nor has the
covert nature of these operations saved international actors from
local scrutiny. In fact, while the UK – who has been one of the
most secretive actors in the region – has avoided mass protests
like those against France, their operations have been steeped in a
quieter controversy. While some respondents welcomed the assistance
provided by the UK against ISIS, especially in light of Libya’s
inability to deal with the problem alone, others were sceptical, of
their presence – with many doubting the UK’s intentions. For
example, one interviewee asserted, “The UK is driven by its own
interests and usually in such situations there is no space for values
and human charity.”
in the eyes of many Libyans, the GNA remains an illegitimate body
There
were several accusations among the respondents that Britain was
involved in the battle in Sirte for its own interests and that its
real goals had more to do with stealing Libya’s wealth and
resources. One student explained, “The international community has
bad faith towards Libya because it does not seek to protect civilians
from ISIS. It seeks to dominate resources in Sirte.”
Recent
comments by British Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, who stated
during a meeting on the fringes of the Conservative party conference
in October 2017 that Sirte could become the next Dubai once it had
"cleared
the dead bodies away", only served to amplify such
suspicions.
More
importantly, through its intervention, Britain has inevitably become
bound up in the complex local power struggles that are tearing Libya
apart. By backing the GNA in its battle to oust ISIS from Sirte, the
UK gave the strong impression that it was supporting one side in this
conflict at the expense of others. Although the GNA was conceived of
as a consensus government, its rejection by some of the key forces on
the ground meant that it was never anything of the sort. Nor was it
ever officially approved by Libya’s elected parliament, the House
of Representatives, meaning that in the eyes of many Libyans, the GNA
remains an illegitimate body.
By
working through the GNA and those forces that support it, Britain
appeared to some Libyans, therefore, to be deliberately empowering
certain elements in the wider Libyan conflict. As one civil society
activist asserted, “Without doubt, British intervention favours one
side over the other.”
At
the same time, local power brokers have been able to seize upon
foreign intervention to discredit and undermine their opponents,
accusing each other of having sold out on national sovereignty for
their own gain. As one respondent explained, “The problem for us is
that members of the political class are competing for power. They
empower themselves against each other through foreign parties.”
Damned if you
don’t
Yet,
in another sense the UK is damned if it doesn’t engage. Despite the
dominant narrative that rejects foreign intervention, there is
clearly a lot of bitterness about the way in which Libya was left to
its own fate once Gaddafi had been toppled. There is clearly an
appetite in Libya for international support, as long as it is
perceived to be focussed on helping Libya as a whole and not just on
tackling groups like ISIS or dealing with the migrant crisis.
For
example, one respondent commented that the international community
“left the country in chaos and civil war.” Journalist Jalal
Othman rued, “After getting rid of [Gaddafi], the international
community left Libya facing its fate alone. Quite often the tanks
were moving from one town to go to bomb another. The international
community heard that, saw that, but it didn’t do anything to stop
it.”
There is clearly a strong feeling of resentment inside Libya
Within
this vein, another issue to emerge strongly from the responses was a
sense that by turning its back on Libya, the international community
had left the country to the mercy of regional players. Many flagged
up the roles played by Egypt, the UAE, Jordan, Qatar and Turkey, who
have all played their part in Libya’s conflict, backing different
factions to the detriment of peace and stability. Indeed, Qatar
and Turkey have backed the Tripoli and Misratan
camps, while Egypt and the UAE have stood firmly behind Haftar,
providing him with political support, as well as military training
and assistance.
So,
what to do?
While
many of these comments reflect a somewhat contradictory position in
which the international community is damned if it intervenes and
damned if it stands back, there is clearly a strong feeling of
resentment inside Libya that the country has been subjected to a
barrage of meddling and ill-thought through interventions, none of
which has had Libya’s interests at its core.
This
is exacerbated by the secrecy and ambiguity over the intentions of
intervening countries. Ambiguity and lack of transparency create hearsay and fuel accusations, drawing interveners into the local
dynamics of the conflict, making it impossible to be seen as an
apolitical or non-partisan player.
This
cannot help but undermine diplomatic action. In the case of the GNA,
the international intervention only fuelled accusations that it was
little more than a puppet government, created by external powers and
serving a foreign agenda. Such accusations weakened it further and
chipped away at its legitimacy.
If nothing else, my research underscores the need for greater
transparency, so that international actions and intentions can stand
up to the scrutiny of the many competing local groups that will need
to be brought onside if Libya is to see peace.
Check the full
report “After the fall: Views from the ground of international
military intervention in post-Gadhafi Libya”.