Although Bernardino Leon, head of the UN Special Mission in Libya (UNSMIL) has exerted great efforts, his consecutive draft solutions have lacked one element that would put an end to the ongoing chaos and reassemble the fragmented Libyan political structure – a collective national security concept.
Although Bernardino Leon, head of the UN Special Mission in Libya (UNSMIL) has exerted great efforts, his consecutive draft solutions have lacked one element that would put an end to the ongoing chaos and reassemble the fragmented Libyan political structure – a collective national security concept.
During his management of the dialogue, Leon has overlooked fundamental issues, without which the current inefficient Libyan political structure would never be revived. And, he proposed the establishment of a national unity government without attempting to define a common ground of constants on which this government is based. Hence, many questions remain: How could such unity be realized without identified mutual constants between the parties of this government? What is the value of any political structure comprising groups with contradicting security priorities? How long would this structure survive? And, why would a dysfunctional state unable to address its citizens’ interests, control its resources, or have an independent political will be considered?
The development of mutual constants is the decisive factor in the survival of this political structure – overlooking this reality would only undermine the project of the Libyan state. The dialogue team must not drift behind the vision of international mediators since the dangers and challenges threatening the stability of the Libyan political structure are no secret – regionally expanding terrorism, mismanagement of Libyan natural resources, tribal and territorial feuds between cities and regions and an indeterminate fate of the transitional justice project.
The initial concordance on these issues constitutes the core of the security map and the foundation of the national security concept on which the collective Libyan political structure shall be based. This historical achievement will not by attained by the international envoy or any other intermediaries – it is the sole responsibility of parties involved in the Libyan dialogue who will influence its outcome by adopting a rational autonomous initiative and vision that will achieve reconciliation to overcome this catastrophic phase and spare the Libyans the scourges of chaos and war.
As for the international parties sponsoring the dialogue, they will not be more keen on protecting the interests of Libyans than Libyans themselves, as they are well aware of the extent to which the ‘national state crisis’ has reached Libya and the Arab region in general. Their leaders and research centers even believe that the Sykes-Picot is no longer feasible and needs to be reviewed and improved in some aspects. Hence, they may contribute to politically rearranging the region, especially in light of the direct impacts of the collapse of the Arab political system on the European countries – the most pressing being the growing illegal migration across the Mediterranean.
The collective national security concept is the foundation of the unified state, whereas contradictory security priorities within a political structure undermine the state and are dormant seeds for civil wars and are even a pretext to economically exhaust the country. A ‘green zone’ will only be an entry gate for foreign embassies and missions and a means to monopolize the people’s resources, which will enforce the crises indefinitely.
Citizens do not draw the causes of their existence from short-lived logos or speeches, rather on a collective rational vision of security, economy, civil rights and social justice. Overlooking such constants presents real challenges before the people’s persistence to create their own political structure within the modern international system.
