Deal for United Libyan Government Signed … by Some

On July 11, representatives from the internationally recognized government of Libya and from various factions that create the Islamist opposition government signed an agreement to create a united government for one year, though the opposition government itself boycotted the agreement. The internationally recognized government is called the General National Congress (GNC) while the government controlled by the conglomeration of Islamist groups collectively known as Fajr Libya (Libyan Dawn) is known as the new General National Congress (new GNC).

In 2011, the longtime Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi, who had suppressed Islamist groups, was killed. The country held elections for the GNC in 2012 and in 2014, and numerous Islamist groups, which were allowed to participate in politics for the first time, participated in both elections. In 2012, a coalition of secular groups won the largest voting bloc in the GNC, though a combination of the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafi parties won a large bloc as well. However, the Islamist groups lost a lot of seats in the 2014 elections. Following those elections, Fajr Dawn forced the internationally recognized government out of the capital of Tripoli and created a rival government. Since then, the country has been torn apart by fighting and has seen an increase in Islamic State presence.

The rival governments have been engaged in negotiations for months. The deal signed on July 11 has the support of the internationally recognized government and various small political parties and civil groups. Though some member groups of Fajr Libya were among those to sign the deal, officials representing the entirety of the new GNC failed to give their support to the agreement or to even go to Skhirat, Morocco, where negotiations have been held. The rival government says that the deal is not “satisfactory” and requires “modifications” before it would be willing to sign on. Nevertheless, many see the preliminary agreement as a positive step toward peace in a war-torn country.

Among those praising the agreement were the European Union and Italy’s Prime Minister, Matteo Renzi. In 2015 alone, thousands of African immigrants have entered Europe through Italy, many coming from Libya in an attempt to escape the violence and chaos. A stable government in Libya would have the ability to combat human smuggling, which would likely lead to a decline in the number of immigrants seeking political asylum in Europe. As terrorist organizations are among those who profit from the lucrative human-smuggling business, a stable Libya could contribute to counterterrorism efforts with no extra effort from the West by taking away a source of income from these groups.

Additionally, terrorist groups, including the well-resourced Al Qaeda and Islamic State, have been disguising their fighters as refugees and sending them into Europe through various human smuggling routes, including those coming from Libya. If Libya were to become more stable, it would theoretically be able to crack down on human trafficking. These groups would therefore have a much more difficult time sending members into Europe to contribute to their recruitment efforts and attacks in the West.

Despite the many positive steps toward peace that may arise from a deal, many fail to realize just how much the internationally recognized government of Libya has been manipulated. As previously stated, Libya overthrew Gaddafi in 2011 and held its first democratic elections in 2012. In those elections, the Islamist groups legitimately won power and became the Libyan parliament’s second-largest voting bloc. However, when they were badly defeated in the next democratic elections, held in 2014, they withdrew completely from the government to stage a revolt under the Fajr Libya militia coalition against the newly (legitimately) elected government. By creating a violent and chaotic situation in the months following the election, they forced the internationally recognized, lawfully chosen government into negotiations that have forced a concession of power to political parties that Libyan citizens chose not to elect in the first place.

Furthermore, as the Center for Security Policy has previously stated, “while they may have differences, Islamist forces, whether Libyan Dawn, Al Qaeda’s affiliate Ansar al-Sharia, or the Islamic State, all seek to impose Shariah law, and are inherently anti-democratic, and diametrically opposed to U.S. interests.” Though some smaller Islamist parties have agreed to this power-sharing deal with the secular, recognized government,  the opposition government’s refusal to sign the agreement until it receives even more undeserved concessions completely undermines the democratic process put in place after Gaddafi. These Muslim Brotherhood and Salafi-backed opposition parties do not believe in sharing power, turning to violence when they lose power and using negotiations to gain the upper hand in order to undemocratically impose Sharia, rather than to reach a compromise with the secular government. Should they lose again in future elections, there is no guarantee that the country will not similarly dissolve into violence.