Question:
What is happening in Libya is striking; while military operations are escalating, negotiations are simultaneously taking place in France, Algeria, Morocco, and Libya itself. What is the explanation for this? Can we say that these two contradictions—military actions and negotiations—are the result of a US-European conflict in Libya? Is military intervention by a Security Council resolution expected, or is it unlikely while negotiations continue to find a solution? Could negotiations lead to a solution that satisfies the conflicting parties? May Allah reward you with khayr.
Answer:
First: Since World War II, the British have been the ones managing Libya, especially during Gaddafi's rule. During his forty years in power, he filled the political medium with agents loyal to the British, and the political medium at that time was almost devoid of American agents. Thus, for the Americans to extend their influence in Libya and strike at European—especially British—influence that has dominated the government in Libya since WWII, they needed a force on the ground. They sent their agent, Khalifa Haftar, who had lived in the US for over twenty years, to Libya after the revolution against Gaddafi began, in an attempt to make him the leader of the revolution or one of its influential leaders. They moved him to start a rebellion on 14 February 2014 against the new regime, which the British controlled through the General National Congress (GNC) and the government, working to overthrow them. He was unable to do so despite controlling several sites. Then, the Americans tried, through Haftar, to disrupt the general elections held on 25 June 2014. However, the elections took place on schedule. On 6 November 2014, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court in Libya issued a decision stating "the unconstitutionality of paragraph 11 of Article 30 of the Constitutional Declaration as amended by the Seventh Constitutional Amendment issued on 11 March 2014 and all its consequences," which meant the dissolution of the House of Representatives and all institutions resulting from it. However, Libyan, regional, and international parties refused to deal with the court's decision. Consequently, Libya ended up with two governments and two parliaments in Tobruk and Tripoli, with the Tobruk government and parliament being internationally and regionally recognized:
Haftar dominates the Tobruk parliament and government and pays them no heed. His men even protested against the Prime Minister "Abdullah al-Thinni" because he visited Benghazi without permission! Forces loyal to Haftar prevented a plane carrying Prime Minister Abdullah al-Thinni from landing in Benghazi on 5 February 2015! It is well known that there are disputes between Haftar and al-Thinni. On 5 February 2015, the Bawabat al-Afriqia news page quoted Libyan officials saying: ("The disputes between Libyan Prime Minister Abdullah al-Thinni—who is also a military man and previously served as Minister of Defense—and the commander of Operation Dignity, General Haftar, have reached a near-deadlock despite recent mediation attempts to contain the tension that arose last year after al-Thinni considered Haftar’s actions a military coup.") This was during Haftar's move on 14 February 2014. Although al-Thinni returned to support Haftar’s second movement when it resumed on 16 May 2014, naming it "Operation Dignity," Haftar has not yet reconciled with al-Thinni. Haftar moves with the spirit of America, following in Sisi's footsteps, hoping to become president! He managed to force the parliament to appoint him as the General Commander of the Libyan Army with the rank of Lieutenant General, and he was officially sworn in on 9 March 2015. Additionally, Major General Abdul Razzaq al-Nazhouri was appointed Chief of Staff, and he is loyal to Haftar. Thus, the Tobruk government is dominated by America.
As for the General National Congress and the Tripoli government, its leader is Abu Sahmain and a group around him, and they move with Europe, particularly the British. Along with this group, there are Muslim men in the Congress who are distant from the British, but they lack sufficient political awareness, making it easy for Europe's men to lead them in the direction they want. Thus, the General National Congress and the Tripoli government are dominated by Europe—that is, the British, with some influence from France and Italy.
Therefore, the conflict exists between Europe and America in Libya, but they mostly fight using local tools. We have previously explained this conflict and how it arose in our answer dated 3 June 2014, which is published on the Facebook page; whoever wants more detail should refer to it.
Second: Regarding military intervention, America lacks a political medium in Libya, as almost all of it consists of British agents or those who revolve around them or walk under their umbrella from some Islamic movements that do not realize the political games and their disastrous results. Therefore, America's reliance is on military actions, hence Haftar and his support from Egypt. In fact, Obama’s request to Congress for authorization to carry out military actions in certain cases likely includes Libya as one of its items, as the situation in Libya is critical. Reuters reported on 23 February 2015 that Obama sent a letter to Congress saying: "The situation in Libya continues to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States." It is understood from the US President's letter to Congress that America's position in Libya is critical or in danger—meaning America is not in a strong position in Libya and its agents are not strong, represented by Haftar's movement and nothing more. They were expelled from the capital, Tripoli, and have been unable to return despite many months passing, nor have they been able to control Benghazi. Therefore, military intervention serves America's interests and saves its agents so they can continue serving it. Accordingly, when the killing of the Copts occurred under these circumstances, Egypt worked to exploit it, rushing to try and obtain an international mandate to intervene in Libya under the pretext of fighting terrorism and avenging the death of its citizens. The Egyptian military intervention on 16 February 2015 breathed new life into Haftar and his followers, their spirits strengthened, and the prospects for a political solution began to recede. However, Europe stood firmly against military intervention in the crisis. Britain rushed to oppose the Egyptian military intervention in Libya; ("Algeria and Britain confirmed on Thursday, 19 February, that they support a political and not a military solution in Libya, in a joint statement by the foreign ministers of the two countries in Algiers. British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond said in a press conference with his Algerian counterpart Ramtane Lamamra: 'We do not believe that military action can lead to a settlement of the problem in Libya.' For his part, the Algerian minister explained: 'As Libya's neighbors, we are keen to be part of the solution and not the problem.'") (Russia Today, 19 February 2015).
Britain was at the head of the opponents in the Security Council to military intervention or to arming the Tobruk government and Haftar's army. Ibrahim Dabbashi, Libya's representative to the United Nations, told Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper: ("Some members of the Security Council, led by Britain, asked the expert team to send a letter to justify their opposition to approving the deal to lift the arms embargo on the Libyan army, explaining that this is an attempt to remove embarrassment from them." He said, "Britain does not want the Libyan army to settle the matter with the terrorists and militias controlling the capital, Tripoli... this is an exposed game.") (Asharq Al-Awsat, 7 March 2015). Europe's harmony with Britain's position of rejecting Egyptian military intervention was also evident. Even Italy, whose Interior Minister Angelino Alfano—to please America—had called for "urgent intervention through a UN-led operation" (Al-Hayat, Tuesday, 17 February 2015), backtracked on his statement due to the European campaign against military intervention. ("Tunisian Foreign Minister Taieb Baccouche and his Italian counterpart Paolo Gentiloni considered that ending the crisis in Libya passes through 'reconciliation' between competing militias. They stressed that 'the best solution is not the military solution but the political solution.' Tunisian Foreign Minister Taieb Baccouche explained in a press conference with his Italian counterpart Paolo Gentiloni, who is visiting Tunisia, 'We agreed that the best solution is not the military solution but the political solution.'") (france24.com, 25 February 2015).
In addition to this fierce attack from Europe against military intervention, Europe also sent signals that Libya is an important security center for Europe, suggesting it would be faster to intervene if America intervened. Russia Today reported on 6 March 2015 Mogherini saying after arriving at the meeting of EU foreign ministers in Riga, the capital of Latvia: ("The main topic discussed in this meeting is the situation in Libya," stressing that Libya's security is an issue of concern to the European Union as a whole and not just its southern states). Naturally, this would spoil the fruits of American intervention if it happened. For these two reasons, America receded from its position of supporting a military solution, and subsequently, Egypt withdrew its draft resolution, which it and Libya had previously submitted to the Security Council on 18 February 2015, which included international military intervention. Thus, consultations in the Security Council continued back and forth until 27 March 2015, when Security Council Resolution No. 2214 was issued. it was devoid of any text on military intervention; rather, it focused on fighting terrorism, which satisfied America, while at the same time emphasizing negotiations to find a political solution, which satisfied Europe. Among the items mentioned regarding these two matters:
("1- Condemns all terrorist acts... and stresses in this regard the pursuit of a comprehensive approach to fully combat these acts.
3- Urges Member States to address by all means, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and international law, threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts...
11- Recognizes the important roles played by the African Union, the League of Arab States, and Libya’s neighboring countries in finding a peaceful solution to the crisis in Libya...
12- Expresses its support for the UN-led political dialogue between the Government of Libya and all Libyan parties that renounce violence...")
Thus, the idea of military intervention was dismissed for the considerations mentioned above, and the focus shifted to political negotiations.
Third: After dismissing military intervention in the Security Council resolution, America and Europe agreed to work on a negotiated solution for the crisis, each in their own way! As for Europe, it wants the negotiations to produce a political solution as quickly as possible because the political medium is mostly with it; any solution managed by the political medium will be in its favor. As for America, it agreed to the negotiations because it could not find a way for military intervention, neither by itself nor by the Egyptian regime, and because it lacks a political medium in Libya. Therefore, it will work on inventing methods for obstruction, thereby giving Haftar time in the hope that he can establish authority, even in part of Libya, to form a new political medium to help him in any subsequent negotiations if he fails to settle the matter militarily. This is because Haftar does not have a good relationship with many members of the House of Representatives in Tobruk, as some of them come from the old political medium. Therefore, America wants to obstruct any results of the negotiations until it can form a political medium that supports it and has effectiveness. That is, what is important to it is to delay the negotiations as much as possible, so that if the negotiations come close to reaching a solution, it spoils them with military actions like air strikes, or the Tobruk delegation asks for a postponement or delay... or using economic pressure, as happened recently when the Tobruk government asked the National Oil Corporation not to transfer oil revenues to the Central Bank (Masr al-Arabiya – via New York Times, 6 April 2015). The newspaper stated in a report published on its website that this decision portends dire consequences. All these matters negatively affect the continuation of negotiations in a productive manner.
Europe realizes that America is working to undermine the negotiations. Therefore, it chose a reliable envoy, Bernardino Leon, who is originally a European envoy. He is different from UN envoys in other issues where they are usually followers of America, such as the envoys of the UN Secretary-General like Jamal Benomar in Yemen.
Bernardino Leon began to quicken his pace to reach a political solution. His concern was to complete his mission during his first mandate period, which was scheduled to end in late March 2015, before it was extended under Security Council Resolution 2213 until 15 September 2015. Leon was supervising intensive negotiations between Libyan parties in Morocco and Algeria, and before them in Libya and Geneva, to reach a solution ending the crisis of governance in Libya. He was in a hurry to finish it in the first period. It began in Geneva, moved to Libya, then to Morocco and Algeria, and then returned to be held in Morocco. In the round of Morocco negotiations on Thursday, 12 March 2015, members of the Tobruk parliament asked to postpone the resumption of political consultations between the Libyan parties for another week, i.e., until Thursday, 19 March 2015, for further consultation. Muhammad al-Sharif, a member of the Tobruk parliament, said, "We want a period of at least a week, after which the parties will return once these papers have been studied." He added that "the negotiations on the national government, security arrangements, and the constitution committee are not complete." The head of the UN mission, Bernardino Leon, met with members of the National Congress in Tripoli and some members of the Tobruk parliament, and they insisted on the aforementioned request for postponement. Leon agreed to postpone the negotiations hosted by Morocco between the participating Libyan parties to Thursday, 19 March 2015, as a decisive period for reaching a national unity government and leading Libya out of its crisis. Leon emphasized the importance of reaching a political solution as soon as possible, "stressing that the United Nations believes the only solution in Libya is a political solution, and there is no military solution," "because Libya will not have time, as the situation is becoming more critical on the ground." (American Radio Sawa, 13 March 2015). Also, on 16 March 2015, a joint statement was issued by the European Union warning of the failure of negotiations, stating: "The failure to reach a political agreement will put Libya's unity at risk... Once an agreement is reached on the formation of a national unity government and related security arrangements, the European Union will be ready to enhance its support for Libya" (German News Agency, 16 March 2015). This shows the extent of Europe's interest in the continuation of negotiations at a time when America and Haftar were not interested in the negotiations as much as they were interested in making gains on the ground to be able to be a party in the negotiations and impose themselves strongly in them.
Therefore, while the negotiations were taking place, Haftar was continuing his military operations. He told AFP on 17 March 2015—two days before the proposed date for the resumption of negotiations: "Operations in the city of Benghazi will end before the middle of next month," meaning he is not concerned with the current negotiations, nor with reaching a solution, nor with forming a government, but rather continuing his military actions. It is clear from this, as we said earlier, that Europe is interested in the success of the negotiations and warns of their failure, while America, through Haftar, is not interested in them as if the matter does not concern it! This reflected on the course of the negotiations; the date scheduled for talks in Morocco on 19 March 2015 was postponed to 20 March 2015, and so on—convening and postponing! On Thursday, 26 March 2015, the Sky News Arabia website published the following: ("The parties to the Libyan dialogue will conclude the third round on Thursday evening in the Moroccan tourist resort of Skhirat, to be resumed after ten days, according to the confirmation of an official in the internationally recognized Tobruk parliament.") It is clear from all this delay and procrastination! Even so, they did not convene after those ten days! Following this, the European Union expressed its concern. The Bawabat al-Wasat website published on 10 April 2015 under the title: "Europe Rescues Leon" the following: ("In an indication of a clear effort to breathe life into Leon's stumbling mission, the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs, Federica Mogherini, said in a statement published by her office in Brussels on Friday, implicitly that she expects the Libyan dialogue to resume in the coming days but without specifying any specific date... In clear support for Leon, Mogherini warned those she described as 'those who continue to work to sabotage the Libyan negotiations'... The European Union fears that the progress of the Libyan army in the west of the country may generate a new power equation on the ground that makes the European role in addressing the crisis 'a useless role'.") It is clear from all this that Mogherini is referring to America, Haftar, and their followers.
Thus, the ongoing political negotiations are being pulled by different parties with varying interests and goals.
Fourth: As for what is expected from these negotiations, they are nothing more than playing in lost time, rising and falling, until the countries that move the ball on the field—near or far—reach an agreement. It does not matter to those countries if the match goes on and on, as long as the blood shed and the calamities occurring are from the Muslims and fall on their heads. The colonialist disbelievers do not respect any bond of kinship or covenant regarding a believer. Any issue of the Muslims that falls into their hands, they kill by slaughtering and "dragging." They are as the Mighty and Wise said:
هُمُ الْعَدُوُّ فَاحْذَرْهُمْ قَاتَلَهُمُ اللَّهُ أَنَّى يُؤْفَكُونَ
"They are the enemy, so beware of them. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?" (Surah Al-Munafiqun [63]: 4)
Thus, as long as the Libyan issue remains in the hands of the colonialist disbelievers and their followers, the crisis will continue until one of the international players overcomes the other—that is, America or Europe overcomes or the balance tilts toward one of them, imposing its view on the other, or they agree on a solution in which America has a share at least equal to Europe's share. Neither Libya nor the people of Libya will gain anything good from the disbelieving oppressors.
The issues of Muslims are solved by the hands of Muslims and not by the hands of their enemies. The solution is easy and accessible for those whom Allah makes it easy for; its weapon is sincerity to Allah in private and public, and truthfulness with the Messenger of Allah (saw) in word and deed. Then the negotiators will see that they are before an ancient Islamic country since the Islamic conquest during the era of the Rightly Guided Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab (ra), and all its people are Muslims. The solution to its problems is in the Book of Allah (swt) and the Sunnah of His Messenger (saw), without any connection with the colonialist disbelievers:
وَلَنْ يَجْعَلَ اللَّهُ لِلْكَافِرِينَ عَلَى الْمُؤْمِنِينَ سَبِيلًا
"And never will Allah grant to the disbelievers a way [to triumph] over the believers." (Surah An-Nisa' [4]: 141)
The Ummah is full of aware, pious, and pure thinkers, so turn to them, and do not turn to the enemies of Allah:
وَلَا تَرْكَنُوا إِلَى الَّذِينَ ظَلَمُوا فَتَمَسَّكُمُ النَّارُ وَمَا لَكُمْ مِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِ مِنْ أَوْلِيَاءَ ثُمَّ لَا تُنْصَرُونَ
"And do not incline toward those who do wrong, lest you be touched by the Fire, and you would not have other than Allah any protectors; then you would not be helped." (Surah Hud [11]: 113)
I conclude with what we said previously in our last answer: It is painful that the lands of the Muslims, which were the starting point for conquests and the spread of Islam that carries justice and goodness to the corners of the world, have become a battlefield where colonialist disbelievers compete to kill us and loot our wealth. They laugh heartily at every drop of blood shed from us, not only by their hands but also by the hands of their agents from our own people!
The colonialist disbelievers are our enemies, so it is not strange that they exert every effort to kill us. But for Libyan factions to line up with them, some loyal to America and others to Europe, and then fight among themselves—a fight not for Islam and the elevation of the Word of Allah, but for the interests of the colonialist disbelievers—this is indeed one of the gravest matters. Fighting among Muslims is a major crime in Islam. The Messenger of Allah (saw) said:
«كُلُّ الْمُسْلِمِ عَلَى الْمُسْلِمِ حَرَامٌ، دَمُهُ، وَمَالُهُ، وَعِرْضُهُ»
"Every Muslim’s blood, property, and honor are sacred to another Muslim." (Narrated by Muslim from Abu Hurairah)
And the Messenger of Allah (saw) said:
«لَزَوَالُ الدُّنْيَا أَهْوَنُ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ مِنْ قَتْلِ رَجُلٍ مُسْلِمٍ»
"The destruction of the world is lighter in the sight of Allah than the killing of a Muslim man." (Narrated by An-Nasa'i from Abdullah bin Amr)
In conclusion, Libya is not without a third group—truthful and sincere—whose concern is to return goodness and justice to Libya by ruling by Islam in life, the state, and society. We hope that this group will cleanse Libya of every colonialist disbeliever and every treacherous agent... and that Libya returns to its roots and essence: the starting point of the conquerors, and the land of the preservers of the Noble Quran... an Islamic fortress guarding Islam:
وَاللَّهُ غَالِبٌ عَلَى أَمْرِهِ وَلَكِنَّ أَكْثَرَ النَّاسِ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ
"And Allah is predominant over His affair, but most of the people do not know." (Surah Yusuf [12]: 21)