The situation in Libya is getting more chaotic by the day, even after the surprising American military intervention with air raids on Daesh (the self-proclaimed Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) in Sirte. The United States intervened with air strikes and special forces on the ground to support groups of militia, previously part of the militant and rebellious “Fajr Libya” militia that had occupied the capital, Tripoli, during an erstwhile illegitimate rule by a government, including the one run by Muslim Brotherhood members and other Islamists. Dominated by fighters from Misrata Brigades, militias fighting Daesh in Sirte were there earlier. In fact, it were these very militias that had destroyed Sirte and left it in ruins for Daesh to later flourish on it. The whole exercise looks like trying to fix earlier mess-ups: Misratans reclaiming Sirte and Americans showing interest after years of failed policies in Libya.
Yet, the driving force behind those militias fighting Daesh or Al Qaida is the campaign led by the Libyan National Army in the east of the country against terrorists and militants in Benghazi, Derna and other areas. With the new Presidential Council and its government, formed according to a United Nations-brokered deal, claiming legitimacy from the last democratically-elected parliament in Tubruk, militias are trying to enforce their authorities as the army and security forces affiliated with the Presidential Council. The idea of a national army in Libya is not at all working for ‘political Islamists’ in general and the Muslim Brotherhood in particular. As the international community stood behind the latest UN-sponsored Council, all factions are looking for the arms embargo on Libya to be lifted, while the militias want imported arms to go to them and not to the army.
In that struggle — one of many in post-Muammar Gaddafi Libya — all the different factions want to present themselves as “fighters against terrorism” — even those who were affiliated with terrorist groups before or still share their ideology with such groups in some way. It took Washington some time to join the Europeans in supporting the Presidential Council, but it chose to do so through air strikes on Sirte, targeting terrorists and supporting “moderate terrorists”. Critics of US intervention in American media argue that some of these militias supported by US strikes were involved in killing the American ambassador in Benghazi, Christopher Stevens, in 2012.
In reality, the current scenario is not really a problem for an American administration that is trying to present ‘political Islam’ as an alternative to both, terrorists as well as traditional regimes in this region. This approach seems to have gained ground after the uprisings of the Arab Spring failed to install the Muslim Brotherhood and its likes in power in the countries concerned, as they were quickly ousted by popular protests and through protest-votings in general elections in Egypt, Libya and to some extent in Tunisia. Yet, Washington and its western allies are still keen on putting such forces in power by any means.
Another regional player — Iran — is not totally opposed to the western approach even in a country like Syria, where Tehran has a key stake. That was really the reason behind a terrorist group like Al Qaida-linked Jabhat Al Nusra changing its name to Fatah Al Sham and announcing disengagement with Al Qaida in an attempt to present itself as an alternative “moderate terrorist” group compared to Daesh, that is seen as a “militant terrorist” outfit.
In Libya, the endeavour to replace the national army with militias is in keeping with a strategy to “impose” a government that includes Muslim Brotherhood, after the Libyan people had spurned them in the 2014 general elections. Daesh in Libya and “militant terrorists” linked to Al Qaida are being used as a pretext to justify this endeavour to instal Muslim Brotherhood in power.
The rise of the threat of terrorism in the eastern part of the country has coincided with efforts by the Libyan National Army to stabilise the eastern region of the country, long before the UN brokered the latest deal, even as the militias were occupying capital Tripoli in defiance of legitimate authorities of an elected parliament.
Though the UN-sponsored government initially had the blessings of many parties, opening a window of hope for a political settlement of Libya’s current chaotic situation, its reliance on militias eroded its popularity and the opportunity. According to the UN deal, the new government should get the approval of the elected House of Representative, which it hasn’t got until now.
Regardless of sheer rhetoric on the need for a political settlement in Libya and a government to be all-inclusive and fighting terrorism in the country, the reality is totally different. Daesh and other “militant terrorist” groups in Sirte and in the east of Libya in general are safely leaving the conflict zones and heading south towards a part of Libya that is virtually a no-man’s land and they have managed to almost detach themselves from the authorities in the north of the country. What has compounded the current crisis is the fact that Libya’s main oilfields are all located in the south. Moreover, a Daesh presence in the south of Libya intensifies the threat of terrorism for the neighbouring countries, mainly Egypt and Algeria.
The Egyptians understand this problem and this issue is a bone of contention between Cairo and Washington. However, the Algerians may still be buying the notion of a “moderates-vs-militants” strategy — despite the fact that the Algerians had suffered a decade of bloodbath in the 1990s when “political Islam” in the country turned into an armed, militant movement.
This “moderates-vs-militants” strategy may work in Syria, with Iran and other parties, like Turkey and Russia, not really bothered about dealing with the Muslim Brotherhood as an alternative force. This can at best only be a temporary arrangement to minimise losses and not a final solution, simply because terrorists are terrorists, even if they belong to a so-called “political Islam”. They may be moderates today — until they get what they aim for, that is — but militancy will always be a part of their ideology.
Dr Ahmad Mustafa is an Abu Dhabi-based journalist.
