Libya intervention? Will the time come when Egyptian forces will be forced to intervene in Libya to help extricate it from the claws of chaos? The question is as delicate as it is urgent. For the past few months, Libya's central authority has been eroded by rival militias, many of which are of the jihadist persuasion, that are trying to control vital amenities, mostly oil, harbours and airports. If the current trend continues with no outside intervention Libya may turn into another Syria, with Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) copycats trying their hand at statehood. Egypt must closely monitor the situation in Libya. On the one hand, it cannot wait for the Libyan regime to completely collapse before moving in, as by this time the threat to our western borders may be out of control. On the other hand, intervention involves a lot more than military might. Countries both inside and outside the region have to be consulted. A partnership with a legitimate authority in Libya must be sought. Also, the objectives and duration of the intervention must be clearly stated in advance. Unless well planned, with diplomatic and public due diligence, an intervention could backfire. When contemplating military options, there is a fine line between action and recklessness that policymakers have to consider. To be legitimate, intervention has to be motivated by the best interests of the country in question and its neighbours. The Egyptian Constitution states that the “president of the republic is the supreme commander of the armed forces, and he is not to declare war or send the armed forces in a combat mission abroad without consulting the National Defence Council and securing the approval of two thirds of the members of parliament.” This is only one aspect of military action that needs to be taken into consideration. Others involve public opinion, which has to back such a move. For any country to send troops outside its borders, it will first have to conduct an extensive debate on all the possible military, political and social aspects of that intervention. Unless such a debate is conducted, political loopholes may be created for terrorists to infiltrate the country and shatter its unity of purpose. For now, Egypt doesn't have a parliament to consult, and the election of such a parliament is not expected before the fall. But the need for military intervention in Libya may arise before that time. “In the absence of parliament,” the Egyptian Constitution says, “the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces must be consulted and both the cabinet and the National Defence Council must offer their consent” for intervention. For intervention to succeed, a legitimate government must exist in Libya, one that can use regional and international help to restore law and order and start the long-awaited reconstruction process. Unless such a power exists, intervention could turn into occupation, activating layers of constraints under international law. Libya, thankfully, has a parliament right now, one that has the right to name or dismiss governments. This in itself is a helpful development, but the fact that the parliament had to convene its opening session in Tobruk, rather than Tripoli or Benghazi, indicates the fragile state of Libyan affairs. What the Libyans need is a government of national unity capable of ending the militia-inspired chaos and starting the country on the road to progress and modernity. But not everyone in the region wants to see this happen. And it is obvious that friends of the Islamist groups keep funding them, even as Libya teeters on the verge of collapse. Libya's scene of rival militias is one of immense complexity, and with some of the militias allied with the Muslim Brotherhood or various jihadist movements prospects for a deal allowing the government to operate without hindrance are remote. If it is ever to heal its wounds, Libya will need more political than military action. Then again, if an ISIS-style situation develops on Egypt's borders, all bets are off. ISIS is now a regional phenomenon, one running from Mosul in northern Iraq to Arsal in eastern Lebanon. Its associates are now vying to imitate its feats, and Egypt — though still relatively safe — has reason to be on its guard. Energised by fresh supplies of cash received from regional allies or taken in the battlefield, ISIS and its friends are now seeking new conquests. With prodigious brutality, their fighters are trying to redraw borders, dispensing with the Sykes-Picot arrangements of a century ago. Syria is now a disaster area, Iraq is being mauled, Lebanon is hanging on for dear life, and Tunisia is struggling to stay ahead of the game. Yemen is torn apart by Al-Qaeda fighters and Huthi insurgents. And Libya is not far from becoming a failed state. The region is facing a crossborder ordeal. Its troubles are not particular to Libya or Egypt, but are visible everywhere. Leaks indicate that Egypt and Algeria held recent talks about a possible synchronised intervention by the two nations inside Libya, from both borders. A recent meeting between President Abdel-Fattah Al-Sisi and Arab League Secretary General Nabil Al-Arabi may have offered the two men a chance to discuss such scenarios. In the case of intervention, the Arab League, and indeed the UN, may need to sanction the move and keep it within the realm of acceptable international norms. We must, however, keep in mind that some countries may have reservations. Turkey and Iran may feel uneasy about a military action conducted by Egypt. Israel is likely to have concerns. Russia and China may need to be reassured about the duration and purpose of the move, and coordination with NATO is inevitable. According to Egypt's former foreign minister, Nabil Fahmi, the US secretary of state suggested holding an international conference on Libya. Such a step could also move us closer to protecting Libya from terror.
