.gif)
By Richard Galustian & Dr Theodore Karasik.
1 November 2014:
Three years ago, the mantra that backed NATO’s six-month air operation which saw . . .[restrict]the fall of the Qaddafi regime was democracy. Today, Libya’s fledging democracy seems on the brink of vanishing from western agendas. Political speeches and recent analyses all call for dialogue – but dialogue between whom, exactly?
Libya has managed, against some fairly challenging odds – not least a dearth of political experience and know-how, an incalculable proliferation of arms and strong tribal allegiances that underpin much of the country’s daily existence – to proceed, albeit stumbling, down a democratic path. There is now an urgent need for the alliance countries to re-engage in Libya, not militarily but politically, to stave off disaster and support the democratic processes the West claimed should replace Qaddafi’s dictatorship.
Ironically, the latest wave of chaos in the country was actually born out of these democratic processes. The 25 June elections, which attracted praise from the UN for being free and fair, and which saw the people make their choices, left both Muslim Brotherhood and Islamist-leaning candidates firmly out in the cold. Unable to accept this humiliating defeat, militia groups loyal to these players set out to wrest control back by the use of force. This was nothing short of a complete rejection of democracy.
Yet international actors have seemed strangely anxious not to be seen to take sides, even the side of the democratically-elected government and parliament. Democracy has become the elephant in the room, and the new D-word for the international community when talking of Libya is dialogue. But this is dialogue between democratically-elected MPs and legitimate government ministers, and illegal armed groups that have destroyed some of the capital’s key infrastructure and taken control by force.
To promote dialogue with such players at this stage completely undermines the basis of democracy – allegedly the very processes NATO hoped to support with its aerial bombardment. Western powers have backed UN mediation efforts but have left open the possibility of power-sharing, hoping a carve-up between armed rebels and elected parliament might bring peace.
To even consider the viability of power-sharing deals between these illegal and self-created groups and democratically-elected institutions, let alone promote them, reduces the NATO intervention to a farce and could threaten the very existence of the new parliament.
Not only does it pander to rebel demands but gives the impression that brute force has equal value to the ballot box. In so doing, illegal and armed operations and shady characters with terrorist credentials are being rewarded with international recognition. A key example of this was former LIFG leader Abdul-Hakim Belhaj’s appearance on CNN. The American channel billed him both as a former militia leader putting himself forward as national conciliator and “the man who many say will be key to making peace in Libya”. Exactly who CNN thinks are these “many” is unclear.
For some time Belhaj has been a shadowy figure, lurking in the upper echelons of one of the capital’s five-star hotels. Amongst many ordinary Libyan citizens, there is a feeling that he has played a critical role in the country’s descent into chaos by pulling on the puppet strings of various Islamist groups. Belhaj plays no official role in Libya’s current political scene and even in the GNC elections in 2012, his party failed to secure a single seat. His main support base appears to come from an assortment of Islamists and terrorists – and, in a country with partisan and shifting allegiances, it seems doubtful he has even their full support. His funding reportedly comes from abroad.
His appearance on CNN, and a high-profile meeting earlier this year with US Ambassador Deborah Jones, were seen in Libya as controversial. So too was British Special Envoy Jonathan Powell’s assertion, also on CNN, that Belhaj was a significant player in Libya and one who should be included in dialogue.
Powell undermined notions of democracy further by describing the militias in Tripoli who undermined democracy through the use of force as business men interested in achieving a stable society. This comment was not only risible but sets a further dangerous precedent for the country. Not only is it acceptable to promote dialogue and discuss power-sharing agreements with armed groups – but these people are now being presented as the acceptable face of future business engagements with Libya.
The international community might as well throw its hands in the air and say: “Hang democracy. In this oil-rich, post-conflict country, any man can be king, and whoever is king, we’ll happily do business with him.”
It is high time Western diplomats admitted that they have been backing the wrong horse by engaging too much with Islamist figures, many of whom have spurious backgrounds and are mistrusted by the citizens of Libya. After the revolution, the focus of the international community should have been rather on helping guide the official institutions as they stumbled their way through a political minefield lined with heavy weapons, and supporting the creation of fully-functioning institutions that would benefit the Libyan population, and help bring stability to the region.
It is not too late for an about-turn; for the international community to stop talking endlessly about dialogue and refocus its efforts on supporting the path of democracy and the decisions of the Libyan government and parliament – those chosen to lead the country through the chaotic situation in which it now finds itself.
Libya is finally showing signs of being able to address some of its more immediate problems. The Prime Minister Abdullah Al-Thinni has proved to be a quietly uncompromising and astute leader who, freed from the influence of armed militias in Tripoli, has finally been able to support the country’s fight against what has been allowed to swell into a tidal wave of extremist ideologies, grasping at power through terror tactics and heavy weapons.
In Benghazi, Operation Dignity – originally an unauthorised movement to rid it of extremist and terrorist elements now legitimised by parliament and brought under the control of the Libyan National Army (LNA) – is making huge strides in securing the eastern city. Five months of attacks on Islamist-affiliated brigades and the designated terrorist organisation Ansar Al-Sharia have left these previously powerful groups weakened, and paved the way for local people to engage in the process of securing their own city.
In the west of the country, the LNA is stepping up fighting in the Jebel Nafusa mountains, pushing back against armed groups that have allied themselves with the Libya Dawn movement. After withdrawing from Tripoli, the army and associated forces, have regrouped and are fighting politicised groups of rebels they say include those with extremist ideologies and tribal grievances. The commander of LNA military operations in the western mountains has said the army will not rest until it has reached and secured Tripoli.
Even when these battles are won, however, the war will not be over. Although the Islamists are on a back-foot in Benghazi, the fight for Tripoli is yet to come and further challenges will await to remove terrorist elements from other towns, including Derna and Sirte. The former, a hotbed of opposition activity even under Qaddafi, has recently aligned itself with the Islamic State, establishing an Islamist court run by a Yemeni judge which has dispensed public executions in the sports stadium and floggings outside the court.
With bases already established in Libya, extremists have underlined their intentions to utilise the country’s instability and Mediterranean location for future expansion. The killing of America’s ambassador in 2012 and the car-bombing of the French embassy in 2013 were warning signs that called for urgent action. Instead, paralysis, forced on the government by powerful militias, enabled the rise of extremism to go unchecked, giving rise to a sub-culture of killings in the east and kidnappings in the west. It is only in the last few months, since parliament and the government escaped from pressures exerted by militias, that successful operations have really begun to take shape.
If Libya were to deteriorate further, extremists and jihadists could further establish themselves as they did in Afghanistan, Yemen and Somalia, but this time within striking-range of Europe. Warning bells have already been sounded by French Defence Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian, who told Le Figaro that “political and economic centres of the country are now at risk of falling under jihadist control”. Similarly, the EU’s incoming foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini, has said she feared Libya could be “next in line” to fall to terrorist forces.
These risks are well-recognised by neighbouring countries which fear the rise of extremism in Libya may threaten their own stability. Tunisia, the birthplace of the so-called Arab Spring, enjoyed well-organised and peaceful elections on Sunday, despite the problems it too faces from the rise of extremism, setting an example to surrounding Arab countries. Egypt, too, sees the writing on the wall for Libya and, along with Russia, has thrown its support behind Libya’s government and parliament.
Three years ago, NATO spoke with one voice, helping deliver Libyans from the tyranny of Qaddafi. In June, Libya’s voters rejected another form of tyranny, that of Islamist-dominated rule. The current situation calls for renewed action from the West – to support the vast majority of Libyans, backing their parliament with the same firmness that once directed the alliance bombing campaign against the forces of oppression.
What is needed is a two-pronged strategy to confront the terrorists and bolster the parliament. In the first instance, the West must make clear that there can be no power-sharing deal between an elected parliament and armed militants. And in the second, parliament should be encouraged to remain inclusive, incorporating all elements, even Islamists, conditional on those elements accepting the rule of law.
By re-engaging with the principles of democracy and throwing wholehearted support behind the democratically-elected government and parliament and the decisions these institutions choose to make, the West would show Libya, and the world, that democracy can triumph over extreme ideologies and armed factions.
Richard Galustian is a business and security consultant who has lived in Libya since 2011. Dr Theodore Karasik is Senior Political Analyst, based in Dubai, UAE.
The views expressed in Opinion Articles do not necessarily reflect those of the Libya Herald. [/restrict] [/restrict]
