Can Libyas Paris agreement be implemented?
Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar and GNA Prime Minister Fayez Al Sarraj may have set aside their differences for a formal pact, but whether the situation on the ground will allow for the terms of the agreement to materialise remains to be seen
Mustafa Fetouri
Libyas two main rival leaders, Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar, commander of the Libyan National Army (LNA) in eastern Libya, and Fayez Al Sarraj, prime minister of Libyas Tripoli-based Government of National Accord (GNA), appeared to have made progress last week after agreeing on a ceasefire and elections for next year during a meeting hosted by French president Emmanuel Macron in Paris.
This was the second time the two have met in a short span of time, the first being in Abu Dhabi in May. What is different this time, however, is that the two sides issued a formal communiqu summing up their agreement.
The Paris meeting could not have happened without intense collaboration with Abu Dhabi, Cairo and Rome. French foreign minister Jean-Yves Le Drian played a leading role in the talks thanks to the strong relations he forged with Field Marshal Haftar when he was defence minister under former president Franois Hollande. The meeting also garnered widespread public support back home, with the majority of Libyans hoping it would bring about some order and security to a country engulfed by chaos since the uprising and Nato intervention that ended the Gaddafi regime in 2011.
But what, in reality, does the Paris accord mean and can it be implemented? First, prime minister Al Sarraj and Field Marshal Haftar agreed to a ceasefire across Libya. In other words, both sides agreed to refraining from using force unless under extreme circumstance. The loose phrasing may leave both sides free to interpret what are legitimate instances. Indeed, what must be recalled is that after the Abu Dhabi meeting, nearly 140 people, half of them soldiers with the LNA, were killed in surprise attacks on an airbase in southern Libya despite both agreeing to a ceasefire at the time.
Reporters Sans Frontieres, an international group to protect reporters and journalists, estimates that about 100 Libyan journalists have fled the country fearing for their lives. It believes about 50 have been kidnapped and over two dozen killed all in the space of six years, excluding the war-related deaths.
A growing number of TV stations have had to relocate to another country or shut down since they could not work safely in post-uprising Libya. Those remaining work under pressure as they have to be very careful as to how to report even simple news items and what kind of views they reflect. In many cases, callers to live talk shows are cut off in the middle of their sentences because the presenter did not like what they could be saying even before they say it.
Radio broadcasters have a little more freedom but the majority are immersed in religious preaching or discussing trivial matters.
As to financing, it is hard to really know who is funding which media outlet. Not a single media outlet declares its financial details. However, there are at least six TV stations that are fully or partially funded by foreign countries. One channel, known as Al-Nabaa, is funded by Qatar, according to a source who does not want to be identified. Other TV stations are split in funding between the Tripoli-based government of national accord and the Tobruk-based government. Some are funded by local political entities, including city councils and political parties. Since there is no published data on funding it is hard to figure out how much money is spent annually.
Another issue is the legal permission to operate media outlets. Laws in place since the end of the Qaddafi era are still enforced, at least in theory, and they do not permit privately owned media outlets unless within very strict criteria. So it is very difficult to see how so many TVs and radios and other media managed to get permissions. Since no government is in control of the entire country, it is highly likely that the majority of media outlets operate illegally without any accountability.
The media scene in Libya is far from free. Rather it is complicated, dangerous and out of control. All in the name of freedom, of course.
aif Al Islam does not want to leave Libya and securing him inside the country is not an easy task given the chaos and lack of security that persists.
So the announcement only confirmed to his supporters that he is a free man. The Abu Bakr Al Siddiq Battalion, which has been in charge of guarding him while in jail, also offered a written statement.
Neither the battalion nor the lawyer revealed where the free young Qaddafi is now, but he is likely to stay in one of three cities that have been strong supporters of him and his father: they are Bani Walid in the north-east, where he spent nearly a month in the final days of the war of 2011, Brak Al Shati in the in the south-west, or Sebha in the south. Bani Walid is one of the most secure cities in Libya and almost entirely self-governing away from the chaos associated with armed militias.
Regardless of where he will stay, the important question is what role he is likely to play in the war-ravaged country.
The attack was carried out by groups claiming to be part of the GNAs forces, which Mr Al Sarraj denied, even going as far as to suspend his defence minister and his chief of armed forces.
Field Marshal Haftar is certainly capable of implementing a ceasefire since he is in full control of the LNA. He has demonstrated this in his years of combatting terror groups in eastern Libya, finally liberating Benghazi last month. By contrast, the GNAs loyalty base is not substantial and consists of mainly different armed groups, some of them only nominally under the GNAs command.
Both rivals agreed that legislative and presidential elections would be organised in Libya as soon as possible and very likely by spring, but this appears to be a tricky point both logistically and legally. Several deals forged since 2011 have not been honoured and the absence of a definitive date for new elections will be considered a disappointment.
Legally, the country still does not have a constitution. After the constitutional assembly finishes drafting it, the document must be approved by parliament and then put into a referendum. Even then, laws governing elections and political parties remain controversial and widely criticised and as such, are unlikely to be accepted as a basis for the next election.
Logistically, having an entire country ready for election within months is no easy task. Libya is a huge country and large parts are not under government control. While Field Marshal Haftar can rein in much of eastern Libya, Derna in north-east Benghazi remains at the mercy of terror groups, including ISIL. At the same time, the GNA is not in full control of western Libya, including the capital, Tripoli.
This brings about the issue of security in a country awash with arms. How elections can ever take place in such an environment remains a big question.
Perhaps the biggest problem to arise from the Paris meeting, nonetheless, is that regardless of any such pact, the fact remains that the meeting was between two men who do not consider each other legitimate leaders.
The French president was putting it nicely when he said that political legitimacy is with Mr Al Sarraj, while military legitimacy lies with Field Marshal Haftar, thereby essentially validating both politicians.
The writer is a Libyan academic
and journalist
Field Marshal Haftar now enjoys the international recognition he has been looking for, not only as a commander of the LNA, but as an international negotiator. This is a big boost for him since it came from a major country like France, which enjoys veto powers.
After all, France played a leading role in the military intervention in Libya six years ago making it at least morally responsible for what became of the country.
If Field Marshal Haftar now wants to implement the deal, as he explicitly claimed in press interviews, he should be able to, at least in eastern Libya. The parliament backing him is likely to accept the deal, as he enjoys wide public support. How much Mr Al Sarraj can deliver, on the other hand, remains to be seen.
Whatever the outcome, the meeting in Paris reaffirmed that the Libyan Political Accord signed in December 2015 remains the basis for political settlement in the country. The accord requires some amendments to accommodate Field Marshal Haftar and the LNA. This should be the focus of United Nations envoy Ghassan Salame in the coming weeks.
