The World’s Foreign Ministers have gathered in Rome to discuss Libya and proclaimed that a deal will be signed by the 16th of December. According to the host – Italian Foreign Minister Gentiloni, ‘The goal… is to “make a decisive push” for Libyans to agree on a unity government.”
A decisive push is an understatement as US Secretary of State John Kerry gave unveiled threats to Libyan opponents of the UN Plan. His Press Conference statements included, ‘We say to those who persist to disrupt the (UN) Agreement will pay a price for their actions.’ (VIDEO 2:33) We speculate Secretary Kerry’s reference is to ICC, economic or travel ban sanctions.
A decisive push is further illustrated as journalists question when-or-even-if a Libyan vote will occur OR if-it-is-actually-needed. Other commentators even speculated that “The anticipated unity Gov & political agreement might have to be approved by a UNSC resolution due to failure of HoR to hold a vote. “ In other words – speculation that a Libyan Government will be DECIDED by a vote of the United Nations Security Council.
Commentators weigh in:
Simultaneously, commentators on Libyan Affairs have noted that the mandates have expired for both parliaments – GNC & HoR. Further, these same commentators have raised questions of the Rome participants’ right to actually represent the Libyan people – noting that both parliaments have little support within their own constituencies.
Emma Bonino, former Italian Foreign Minister and Jean-Marie Guéhenno in a Politico article entitled, The Risks of Rushing a New Libyan Deal: Attempts to push through a hasty U.N. deal will do more harm than good. The article noted that the International Community’s unequivocal bullying actions in LANGUAGE – ‘The train has left the station‘ – and TACTICS -‘dismissed’ an organic Libyan-Libyan initiative in favor of the tainted Leon/UAE/UN plan. A UN plan complete with the footing of ‘a relatively unknown politician’ rumored to have a brother with high-ranking post in the Dubai consulate of the Libyan Embassy. The Politico article:
Last weekend, Libyan delegates from the two parliaments announced an alternative peace plan. The U.N. and Western powers dismissed the initiative, stating unequivocally that the U.N. plan was the only way forward. “The train has left the station,” said Martin Kobler, the new head of the U.N. mission in Libya, in a press statement. The statement added that he “urges all Libyans to support this agreement, including those who still oppose it.”
That is wishful thinking. Libya’s proposed new sole recognized authority would be headed by Faez Serraj, a relatively unknown politician prior to his nomination by the U.N. in October. It is highly likely that security conditions will prevent Serraj and his colleagues from taking office in Tripoli.
The Politico article continues:
“The U.N. and major powers are gambling that a strong push by the international community will pave the way for the establishment of a Libyan government that will restore law and order and be a partner for counter-terrorism and migration control.”
…The establishment of a Libyan government that will restore law and order and be a partner for counter-terrorism and migration control… seems to be the key statement for the International actors who ‘dismissed the initiative, stating unequivocally that the U.N. plan was the only way forward.’ Libya as a partner in counter-terrorism Reuters noted, ‘The U.N. brokered agreement would allow a new Libyan government to ask for international military assistance to fight Islamic State’s growing presence.’ Therefore, Libya’s significance – right now – is as a partner against the rise of Islamic State and the control of migrants into THEIR sphere of the Mediterranean.
In other words, the international community is looking to protect their self-interests – first and foremost. We argue this is their MAIN motivation. THEIR motivation is the topic of this op/ed discussion: What is best for THEIR self-interest is what motivates the international community… at the expense of what is best for Libya and/or Libyans.
“The plan would extend the reconstituted parliament’s term by one year and allow for an automatic one-year extension of its mandate beyond that, if necessary.”
The UN Plan extends the mandate of the Tobruk’s HoR parliament for another year or two. As the international community – through the UN plan – gives undeserving legitimacy to the HoR once again, it is important for the Libyan people to see how the HoR is characterized in the UK Parliament’s written testimony.
An Insider’s account of the HoR is by one of the International Community’s experts/advisers on Libyan Affairs. The testimony illuminates how undemocratic, and increasing despotic the HoR is openly acknowledged in Washington, London, Rome and Paris….. And yet, based on arguably THEIR self-interests… the HoR is rewarded and for lack of better word – FORCED on the Libyan citizens for another year or two…or three?
Written testimony given to UK Parliament
Wolfgang Pusztai is ‘a freelance security and policy analyst. He was the Austrian Defence Attaché to Italy, Greece, Libya and Tunisia from 2007-2012.’ Mr. Pusztai gave ‘written evidence‘ to the UK Parliament entitled “U.S. Strategy for Libya – Proposal.” This is an excerpt:
Mr. Pusztai’s assessment raises a few critical issues:
The International Community chooses which Libyan Government to bestow with THEIR title of ‘Internationally Recognized’… arguably based on THEIR self-interest.
Mr. Pusztai noted that ‘GNC/Libya Dawn as such are no reliable allies… Their rejection by most international players suggests any kind of recognition or cooperation would embarrass important regional partners.’ AND ‘The HoR, al-Thinni´s internationally recognized government… represents one of the few suitable partners in Libya with whom international partners could pursue the immediate strategic objective.’
The international community recognizes that the conduct of ‘internationally recognized’ government/ parliament is arguably appalling, undemocratic and increasing despotic.
Mr. Pusztai noted that ‘The conduct of the HoR, al-Thinni´s internationally recognized government… departs from Western standards… human rights violations, democratic attitude at least in part doubtful).’
Mr. Pusztai also noted that ‘internationally recognized government/parliament’ is ‘the lesser evil a potential partner’ AND ‘Working with them is a matter of necessity.’
‘Options for Strategic Objectives’ (A), (B) & (C)
Further, we note Mr. Pusztai’s plan Options for Strategic Objectives. Mr. Pusztai’s plan, Option (A) recognizes that although ‘a long-term goal’, he notes that ‘a stable, democratic Libya’ is ‘currently not realistic’. Noting the lack of viability of Option (A), Mr. Pusztai provides Option (B) and (C). In both options, he states ‘the U.S. to pursue the own interests.’
Option (B) would be ‘The second possible objective would “accept” the Lebanonization of Libya. It could be – for the time being – enough for the U.S. to pursue the own interests and face the risks for themselves.” ‘Lebanonization’ means in colloquial terms – ‘leave and let the locals slug it out themselves.’ In defense terms it means – ‘a hint at imminent civil war, political deadlock’ and ’warning the state would fall apart like Lebanon did from 1975-1991.’ Option (B) notes acceptance of an imminent Libyan Civil War therefore, “It could be – for the time being – enough for the U.S. to pursue the own interests.” Option (C) Sourcing ‘Niccolò Machiavelli’, ‘”Bismarck´sche Realpolitik’ and ‘Chinese Sun Tzu’ – for various stages – Mr. Pusztai’s proposal states for US policy in Libya… “(whenever decisive action is required) will be necessary to influence Libya´s future in a positive way and to safeguard American interests.”
We note Mr. Pusztai’s proposal states “to safeguard American interests.”
Therefore, we argue when the international community openly acknowledges the undemocratic, increasingly despotic nature of the ‘internationally recognized’ parliament – BUT still considers them ‘suitable partners in Libya with whom international partners could pursue the immediate strategic objective’ – AND then by forcing on Libyans the UN Plan which gives the same parliament legitimacy (& business-as-usual-insert) for another year or two – is to tell the Libyan people be damned with your righteous desire for true democracy – OUR desires usurps YOURS.
Parts of this op/ed article is reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.