As Libyans across the country, in an paradoxical show of grassroots unity in the politically polarised country, celebrated the ninth anniversary of the 17 February revolution that overthrew the Muammar Qaddafi regime in 2011, participants at the meeting of the international follow-up committee to the Berlin conference, which was held on the margins of the Munich Security Conference, renewed their commitment to the agreements struck during the international summit on Libya hosted by Berlin on 19 January. The meeting, which was attended by the foreign ministers of Algeria, China, Egypt, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, Turkey, Tunisia, DR Congo, the UAE, the UK and the US, in addition to high level representatives of the UN, the African Union, the EU and the Arab League, was another Western push to renew and mobilise international support for the Berlin process which has not moved forward as planned. Even though the military/security and economic committees, formed in accordance with the outputs of the Berlin summit, have met, the more crucial political process remains stalled because the Tobruk based House of Representatives has not yet selected its representatives for this process which is scheduled to kick off in Geneva 26 February. Sunday's meeting of the follow-up committee came several days after the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 2510 (2020) which “endorses the conclusions of the Berlin summit”, “demands that the parties commit to a lasting ceasefire”, “condemns the recent blockade of oil facilities”, “demands full compliance including by all Member States with the arms embargo” in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1970, “including by ceasing all support for and withdrawing all armed mercenary personnel” and “demands all Member States not to intervene in the conflict or take measures that exacerbate the conflict”. The resolution passed with 14 votes in favour and one abstention. The abstention came from Russia, which argued that there was no clear consent on the part of Libyan parties to implement the resolution, making the resolution essentially unviable, according to a Russian Foreign Ministry statement. As the reasons cited by the Russians for their abstention suggest, the chief obstacle to the implementation of the Berlin agenda is the situation on the ground in Libya: the warring factions still refuse to translate the fragile truce brokered by Russia and Turkey into a lasting ceasefire, Libyan political leaders remain inflexible, and weapons and militia forces continue to flow into Libya from some of the very participants in the Berlin summit who had committed to the principle of halting such assistance. “The situation on the ground remains deeply troubling. The truce is holding only by a thread. It is the Libyan people that continue to suffer the most. The economic situation continues to deteriorate, exacerbated by the oil [facilities] blockade,” said Stephanie Williams, deputy head of political affairs with the UN Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL), after the follow-up committee meeting in Munich. Denouncing the ongoing breaches of the UN weapons embargo on Libya, the American diplomat said that the embargo “has become a joke”. Alluding to certain participants in the Berlin summit, she added: “We all really need to step up here.” The embargo continues to be violated “by land, sea and air” and this “needs to be monitored and there needs to be accountability”, she said, warning of the perilous situation that existed in Libya which is “awash with illegally-imported advanced weapons”. In a joint statement issued on Sunday, the 13 countries at the follow-up committee meeting in Munich reiterated their support for and their commitment to fully implement the outputs of the Berlin summit. They also welcomed UN Security Council Resolution 2510, adopted 12 February, which called for a ceasefire but offered no clarification of a means to make this possible or of a mechanism for curbing outside military support for Libyan factions. After the conference, German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas called on EU foreign ministers to reach an agreement on the role that Europe should play in monitoring the embargo. “Everyone needs to know that, if they violate the embargo in future, then they violate a UN resolution, and that this cannot remain without consequences,” he said, without elaborating further. EU leaders have so far been unable to reactivate Operation Sophia, a maritime monitoring operation that was suspended due to discord between EU countries over how to share the burden of the migration problem among EU members. Not even the intensive Russian and Turkish intervention in Libya, which has aroused the concern of European countries, has galvanised them into a consensus over mechanisms for managing the Libyan crisis and its repercussions. Russia, for its part, criticised the haste with which Western powers rejected its proposals during discussions over the drafting of Resolution 2510. A statement released by the Russian Foreign Ministry explaining its abstention said that the types of ultimatums and unilateral approaches expressed in the resolution were unlikely to advance a Libyan peace settlement. The Russians had urged the Security Council members to wait until the three tracks of the Libyan dialogue process were complete so as to ensure the consent of all Libyan parties. Unfortunately, “the British authors decided to take a shortcut in order to pass the UN Security Council resolution more quickly, apparently without thinking whether it would be viable or not.” The statement concluded: “Russia will continue to work with all the key Libyan players and will motivate them to achieve a permanent truce as soon as possible and to discuss the entire range of matters linked with restoring the unity of the Libyan state and normalising life in the country.” The statement noted that “the Russian side's decision to support the concluding provisions of the Berlin summit was motivated precisely by the need for subsequently coordinating them with the Libyans.” Some observers have construed these statements as signs of a Russian intent to bring Libyan players onboard a process that excludes Western powers and may jeopardise UN efforts. Meanwhile, the many fluctuations, inconsistencies and contradictions in Western positions on the Libyan crisis are not encouraging. For example, after his meeting with Tunisian President Kais Saied on 23 January, Heiko Maas invited Tunisia to the launch of the follow-up committee on the Berlin conference. Yet Tunisia had not been invited to any of the preparatory meetings for the Berlin conference and then it was only invited to the conference as an afterthought. More recently, on 2 February, Maas announced that the follow-up committee would meet in mid-March. Then he suddenly pushed the date forward in order to coincide with the Munich Security Conference. Had it not been for Russian and Turkish intervention that led to an albeit shaky truce in Libya, the Berlin summit would never have happened. Will the ongoing disunity among Western powers over how to handle the Libyan crisis will clear the way for Russia and Turkey to steer an alternate process separate to the UN-sponsored process?
*A version of this article appears in print in the 20 February, 2020 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly.
