This is the third time in a row that talks between Libya’s government and the Libya Dawn militias had to be postponed.
The talks were expected to take place on January 5, brokered by the United Nations Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL) in an attempt to bring about some form of political settlement that could bring peace to the oil-rich North African country.
The delay is caused by disagreements on issues such as the agenda, venue and invitees. Politically, the issues at hand are complex and various local and regional parties are involved.
In addition, events on the ground keep evolving by the day, changing the conditions for talks as each side constantly reconsiders its political position in light of where it stands militarily. This is the political kaleidoscope before UNSMIL head Bernardino Leon.
During his many trips to both Tobruk, where the internationally recognised government is based, and Tripoli where the militias have set up their own government, the Spanish diplomat has been searching for a local solution to an increasingly regional problem. Any solution would have to sort out the proxy war ravaging Libya since Nato helped rebels topple the Gaddafi regime in 2011.
Some countries in the region are increasingly vying for influence by helping the outlawed militias against the elected government of prime minister Abdullah Al-Thini. The regional dimension is making dialogue among Libyans ever more difficult and further complicating a complex situation.
There are multiple UN resolutions in place. The latest, resolution 2174, calls on all nations to refrain from supplying arms to Libya. In fact, military exports to Libya are still prohibited by a Security Council resolution.
No wonder then, that Mr Leon’s mediations will not bear fruit unless he goes back to the United Nations with one clear message: if the world body is interested in saving Libya it must find mechanisms to reinforce its resolutions on the ground.
We should remember here that it was the Security Council that helped destroy Libya by authorising the use of force to topple the government in March 2011.
This is the moment for the Security Council to uphold its obligations to the Libyan people. It can do this by finding ways to enforce its resolutions, particularly 2174, which was adopted last August and is targeted at the militias that are looting the country, destroying its resources including its oil, and terrorising its people.
France’s defence minister, whose government led the air campaign in 2011, recently said that it would be “a serious mistake” for the world to ignore “the growth of a hotbed of terrorism in the heart of the Mediterranean”.
He was echoing Libya’s southern neighbours, particularly Niger and Chad, which have already called for international action in Libya. And yet, the French president recently ruled out military intervention in Libya unless there is a “clear” mandate from the international community to do so.
France is a permanent member of the Security Council and has some moral responsibility for the situation because it played a major military role in attempts to stabilise Libya in 2011 and alleviate the people’s misery.
If the major powers, including France, are serious about stabilising Libya and stopping the bloodshed, they have to understand that Mr Leon is not a magician and can only do what the Libyan factions are willing to accept.
Of course, none of this can happen unless pressure is applied to the militias and their backers – both the individuals and states – as required by resolution 2174. It says that those “responsible for violations or abuses of human rights or violations of international humanitarian law, including those involved in attacks targeting civilians” must be held accountable.
Punitive measures must be put in place to punish violators if UN resolutions are to be respected.
Mustafa Fetouri is a Libyan analyst at PIR center, an author and award winning freelance journalist
