Libyan unity government and political agreement under fire
For ages now there has been a constant refrain from supporters of the Libyan Government of National Accord (GNA) and the UN envoy Martin Kobler that the Libyan Political Agreement (LPA) is the only way forward in Libya.
|1 of 2|
|All of a sudden, the narrative is changing. Even though at a recent conference in London there were moves made to bolster the GNA and help it out with some of its many problems, there appears to be a concerted attempt to wean international support away from reliance on the LPA and the process of having the GNA present a new cabinet before the House of Representatives for a vote of confidence as required by the LPA. The HoR voted against approving the GNA last August 22nd. There is still no sign of a new cabinet being chosen nor any new deadline for when the HoR will vote. Faiez Serraj, the PM of the GNA claims in a recent interview that the HoR is not even asking that a new cabinet be submitted for approval:|
Now the HoR does not even want us to propose a third GNA. Mr Ageela Saleh has taken a prior decision to reject any proposed GNA. How can you work with this as a legislative partner? ‘I will not propose a new GNA for HoR approval prior to the HoR passing a constitutional amendment. If the HoR does not pass a constitutional amendment it abrogates its responsibilities in the LPA.If Serraj's claim is correct it is not surprising that the PC is in no hurry to create a new cabinet.
Crisis Group raises funds from mainly western governments, charitable foundations, companies and individual donors. In 2011/2012, 49 percent of its funding came from governments, 20 percent from philanthropic organisations, and 31 percent from individuals and private foundations...Crisis Group has an Advisory Council composed of three groups named the President's Council, the International Advisory Council, and the Ambassador Council, which includes corporations like Chevron and Shell, as well as some members listed on its website as 'Anonymous'. Crisis Group has been criticised for serving the interests of its corporate and government funders.It has at times been criticized as serving western interests. That the group should come out with such an extensive hard-hitting critical account of the LPA and the GNA as well indicates that there could be a shift towards a new policy that tries to accommodate Haftar by moving away from or negotiating the LPA.
To save the country, the calls for new negotiations to create a united government “involving especially key security actors not at Skhirat” – a reference to Khalifa Hafter and the Libyan National Army. Not only has the agreement altered the conflict, the conflict has altered the circumstances. Hafter’s successes in Benghazi and in the oil fields have upset the international community’s calculations and changed the situation on the ground. As a result, the international community’s instance in implementing the LPA as its stands is wrong. The peace process has to be “reset”.
“The prospect of Libya in free fall should give all pause, especially the vulnerable neighbours. Regional and global actors involved in the diplomatic process over Libya should converge on common goals, push for a renegotiation of the accord, use their influence to restrain the belligerents and nudge them toward a political solution and participation in a security track.”Among the common goals the international community are supposed to have are a unified army command and a reunified security structure. However, Haftar does not want to be within the chain of a political GNA command and it is not clear how the necessary security track of unifying the security structure is to be achieved.