Just prior to a Berlin-based summit aimed at negotiating peace in Libya’s deleterious civil war, optimism surrounding a potential accord was significantly diminished by the intransigence of the conflict’s principal warring factions. Called to an impromptu meeting in Moscow on Monday 13 January, even the strong-arming influence of Russia and Turkey, the fighting’s two principal patrons, appears to have had a negligible effect in promoting peace. Despite early progress, talks culminated in the abrupt departure of General Khalifa Haftar, the head of the Libyan National Army (LNA), severely undermining hopes for a peaceful resolution. Haftar’s rejection of the peace deal presented to him and his Government of National Accord (GNA) rival Fayez al-Sarraj, indicates the increasing volatility of the situation in Libya. That Haftar openly snubbed his Russian patrons indicates a recklessness that bodes ill for Libya’s brutalized civilian populace.
Since the re-emergence of civil strife in 2014, the conflict has hosted an escalating lack of concern for civilian life, reaching deadly heights during 2019. After seizing Libya’s prodigious southern oilfields in January, the LNA turned its focus towards Tripoli during April of last year. The advance on the capital was hallmarked by the collateralization of civilians, as homes, hospitals and schools have all become targets of indiscriminate air attacks in the greater Tripoli area. Hundreds of civilians (including rising numbers of children) have been killed, with tens of thousands more displaced from their homes – further exacerbating the deadly migration of refugees across the Mediterranean. Reports compiled by Amnesty International during 2019 claim that military actions on both sides constitute “possible war crimes.” Excoriating both sides for their brazen disregard of humanitarian law, Magdalena Mughrabi, Amnesty’s Deputy Middle East and North Africa, reminded the warring parties of their “obligation under international law to protect civilian lives and to clearly distinguish between civilians and fighters during their attacks.”
However, as in Syria, the human cost of civil war in Libya remains distinctly unimportant to the geopolitical calculations of those fuelling the violence. Both Russia and Turkey care only for a government best suited to their strategic interests. Whilst Russia prefers the militarist and anti-Islamist LNA, Turkish policy incorporates a desire to spread the seeds of political Islam by supporting the Islamist aligned GNA. This mirrors the ruling AKP’s domestic policy, namely the transformation of secular Turkey into a theocracy.
Both Moscow and Ankara desire access to Libya’s vast oil and gas reserves, with Turkey also claiming tenure over much of the eastern Mediterranean in a deal agreed by the GNA. With President Putin this week consolidating his iron grip on the Russian state and President Erdogan threatening to “teach a lesson” to General Haftar following his rejection of negotiations, imminent foreign withdrawal and lasting peace seem a long way off. Similarly, divisions afflicting EU approaches to Libya, namely between former colonial powers France and Italy, appear set to continue, rendering a unified response to the crisis – at best – lethargic.
One hopes that this weekend’s talks result in at least a prolongation of the current ceasefire, alongside some commitment to respecting humanitarian boundaries. However, in the long term, those advocating peace will need to adopt a realistic approach towards Libyan internal divisions and the containment of destabilizing foreign ambition. Negotiating a peace accord based on a unified desire to eradicate extremist Islamic elements may be one route towards peace. Ultimately however, the machiavellian designs of Presidents Putin and Erdogan require reshaping in line with humanitarian values. Without such a Damascene shift we will undoubtedly see another Libya-esque conflagration emerge elsewhere; just as we have seen in Syria and Ukraine beforehand.
