logo
Bad peace or no state at all? What this NATO-torn state is facing years after its leader's murder

Bad peace or no state at all? What this NATO-torn state is facing years after its leader's murder

Russia Today3 days ago

Libya has endured a collapse unmatched in modern North Africa since the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1973 in March 2011 – endorsing international intervention during the uprising against Muammar Gaddafi. Fourteen years on, the country remains fractured, chaotic, and stuck in an open-ended 'transitional period' that never seems to end. NATO's seven-month, round-the-clock bombardment of the country, under the pretext of protecting civilians, left Libya in tatters.
So far, the UN has dispatched ten special envoys, passed 44 resolutions, convened multiple peace conferences, and spent hundreds of millions of dollars. All UNSC resolutions adopted under the UN Charter's Chapter VII, which makes them binding to member states, have not, however, been implemented effectively on the ground. Libya remains a cautionary tale: Two rival governments, a patchwork of militias, foreign interference at every level, and no real path to a functioning, unified state.
Despite repeated pledges to guide the country toward elections for a parliament, president, and unified government, every major initiative has failed since the last elections in 2014. The UN Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL) now stands accused of not resolving the crisis – but managing it instead. Critics argue that the mission has become a diplomatic holding pattern, one that accommodates obstructionists instead of sidelining them.
Nothing illustrates the UN's ongoing failure better as the recent eruption of violence in Tripoli. On May 12, two powerful government-loyal militias clashed in a two-day battle that left over 100 civilian casualties and at least eight deaths. Burned-out cars and rubble littered the streets of the capital.
It was triggered by the assassination of Abdel Ghani al-Kikli, known as 'Gheniwa', at the hands of the rival 444 Brigade. Gheniwa, who led the Stability Support Apparatus (SSA), was ambushed during what was supposed to be a mediation meeting.
Both the SSA and 444 Brigade were created by former Prime Minister Fayez el-Sarraj by separate decrees. The SSA's tasks included protecting government buildings, providing personal protection to government officials, and controlling public discontent. The 444 Brigade was intended to be more of a disciplined combat-army unit headed by Colonel Mahmoud Hamza – a professional military officer. It originated as a small unit within a larger militia known as the Special Deterrence Force.
Gheniwa, however, was more than just a militia commander: He had practically been running a parallel state, extending his influence across Libya's security apparatus, central bank, foreign ministry, and southern Tripoli's governance.
The UN condemned the fighting, as it always does, and called for calm, but had little else to offer. The mayhem underscored what many Libyans already knew: Tripoli is not safer without Gheniwa and the state does not control the armed militias.
This has been the case since NATO's 2011 intervention which, effectively, paralyzed the Libyan state, and now the UN has lost its grip on the peace process.
From Abdel Elah al-Khatib in 2011 to Abdoulaye Bathily in 2024, every UN envoy has exited the Libyan stage with their mission unfulfilled.
Some made bold moves. Bernardino Leon brokered the 2015 Skhirat Agreement, which became a de facto constitution in a country that still does not have one. The agreement is the official UN-sanctioned frame of reference for every political effort the UNSMIL attempts. Ghassan Salame, who took over five years after Leon, led the 2020 Berlin Process, further strengthening Leon's work and delivering the road map that led to the formation of the current Government of National Unity (GNU) still in office today.
But each road map eventually hit a dead end: Local actors resisted compromise, foreign players pushed their own agendas, and the interim authorities hoarded power.
Bathily, a Senegalese diplomat, abruptly resigned in April 2024 after a proposal by the High Steering Committee to agree on a road map for the country was rejected by almost all rival groups and political entities in the country, including the House of Representatives in Tobruk and the High State Council (HSC) in Tripoli. His resignation letter was scathing, citing 'a lack of political will and good faith' among Libyan leaders and warning that foreign interference had turned Libya into a 'playground for fierce rivalry among regional and international actors.'
His exit left the UN with a credibility problem.
Now the UN is turning to Ghanaian diplomat Hannah Tetteh – the former head of the UN Office to the African Union – in what some see as a pivot toward African-led legitimacy. Critics of past efforts have long argued that Libya's future should not be steered solely by European or Gulf powers.
Tetteh faces daunting odds. Before her appointment, acting UN envoy Stephanie Koury laid some groundwork by establishing a 20-member Libyan Advisory Committee. On May 20, the committee delivered a report outlining four possible political paths: 1) hold both legislative and presidential elections, then proceed to a constitutional referendum; 2) begin with legislative elections, followed by a referendum to adopt a permanent constitution, then presidential elections; 3) reverse the process: Adopt a constitution first, then hold elections; 4) reset entirely, launching a new national dialogue and road map through consensus.
Any of these tracks requires buy-in from what Libyan observers call 'the Five Devils' – the key domestic spoilers: Aguila Saleh, speaker of the House of Representatives in Tobruk; Khaled al-Mishri, the head of the HSC in Tripoli; Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar and his forces in the east; Prime Minister Abdul Hamid Dbeibah and the Government of National Unity; the three-member Presidential Council in Tripoli.
Bathily tried to convene these actors in one room. It never happened. And that failure, more than any policy misstep, sealed his fate.
The international community often calls these actors 'stakeholders'. In truth, they are gatekeepers of chaos. Elections threaten their entrenched power and access to state wealth. The longer the delay, the more they benefit.
Many of these factions now function as proxies for foreign powers. Egypt, Turkey, France, Russia, the US, and to a lesser extent, Qatar, all back different sides. Their interests rarely align with the democratic aspirations of ordinary Libyans.
Domestic leaders, meanwhile, speak the language of peace in public while obstructing it behind closed doors. Dbeibah's GNU has publicly welcomed elections – while allegedly using state funds to sponsor rallies, suppress dissent, fund nominally allied militias, and sabotage electoral logistics.
Last month, the Tobruk based parliament invited 14 men to present their manifestos to become the new prime minister of the unified government in Libya. But the chamber appears hesitant, fearing that the new government will not be recognized by the UN, as it will not be able to peacefully dislodge Dbeibah's GNU from the center of power in the capital, Tripoli.
This scenario is likely to lead to violence in Tripoli and perhaps other parts of the divided country. The UNSMIL has not commented on the parliamentary discussions yet, but behind the scenes, it does not support this step, fearing the consequences and potential destabilizing effects.
Critics argue that the UN mission has shifted from seeking resolution to managing stagnation. The mantra of a 'Libyan-led solution' has become, in effect, an excuse for inaction. By refusing to confront spoilers head-on, the mission risks legitimizing the very elites blocking progress.
One Libyan analyst, speaking anonymously, described the UNSMIL as 'a concierge service for the crisis' – hosting endless forums and communiques, while average citizens endure poverty, sky-high cost of living, inflation, and collapsing services. Basic institutions – a unified military, functioning judiciary, and national budget – remain aspirational.
And then, like clockwork, violence erupts in Tripoli.
If Tetteh's mission stalls like the rest, what is the UN's plan B? There is no formal fallback, but diplomats are quietly discussing three controversial options:
The Bosnia option remains deeply divisive. But as one Tripoli-based European diplomat speaking on condition of anonymity put it, 'Better a bad peace than no state at all.'
Libya is no longer just a post-Arab Spring tragedy – it is a credibility test for multilateral diplomacy. Fourteen years of broken deadlines, shelved blueprints, and failed elections have disillusioned not only Libyans but the international community.
Hannah Tetteh's task is to do what nine others could not: Disrupt elite collusion, overcome foreign manipulation, and make elections more than just lines in a Geneva communique.
Her success or failure will shape not just Libya's future – but the legacy of the UN's longest-running post-conflict mission since Iraq.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

South Africa urges global unity on debt sustainability
South Africa urges global unity on debt sustainability

Russia Today

time12 minutes ago

  • Russia Today

South Africa urges global unity on debt sustainability

President Cyril Ramaphosa has urged increased urgency, ambition, and alignment in addressing the global debt crisis that confronts low-income and developing countries, emphasising that the world is racing against time with just five years remaining to meet the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030. Speaking ahead of the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD4), Ramaphosa emphasised the need for unified global action to achieve sustainable development and support vulnerable economies. 'We must achieve these goals not merely because we have committed them to paper, but because the health, welfare, and happiness of billions of people depend on the progress we make.' He described the conference as a decisive moment for the global community, especially in the wake of the United Nations 2024 Report on the SDGs, which he said 'captures the gravity of the crisis.' Referring directly to the report, Ramaphosa stressed that it makes clear. 'We must think and act differently. We must move faster and with far greater ambition. Importantly, we must align our efforts across all available fora and platforms.' Under South Africa's G20 Presidency, Ramaphosa reaffirmed the country's commitment to prioritising solidarity, equality, and sustainability. He stressed that global challenges can only be solved through cooperation, collaboration, and partnership. A central focus of South Africa's G20 agenda is debt sustainability. Ramaphosa pointed out that many developing nations are trapped by high debt servicing costs, limiting their ability to invest in essential services. 'We know, for example, that 23 countries in Africa are paying more for debt costs than critical development enablers like health and education. South Africa seeks to advance sustainable solutions to tackle high structural deficits and liquidity challenges and extend debt relief to developing economies,' he said. To address these issues, South Africa will convene a side event at FfD4 under the theme: Forging a Common Agenda to Achieve Debt Sustainability in Developing Economies. The conference, which will take place from June 30 to July 3, 2025, in Spain, aims to bring together stakeholders from across debt-related initiatives to identify 'synergies and areas of convergence' and build consensus on sustainable solutions. Ramaphosa stressed the importance of the FfD4 conference, calling it: 'A crucial opportunity to reshape global financing systems in support of the SDGs.' He urged bold and inclusive action: 'We must therefore emerge from the conference with bold decisions and ambitious action plans that should really leave no country behind, no community or no person behind. 'If we can have such a great ambition, I am sure the world will be a much better place.'First published by IOL

Ukraine's most reckless attack: Was NATO behind it?
Ukraine's most reckless attack: Was NATO behind it?

Russia Today

time14 hours ago

  • Russia Today

Ukraine's most reckless attack: Was NATO behind it?

While Western headlines celebrated Operation Spider's Web as a daring feat of Ukrainian ingenuity, a closer look reveals something far more calculated – and far less Ukrainian. This wasn't just a strike on Russian airfields. It was a test – one that blended high-tech sabotage, covert infiltration, and satellite-guided timing with the kind of precision that only the world's most advanced intelligence networks can deliver. And it begs the question: who was really pulling the strings? Let's be honest. Ukraine's Main Directorate of Intelligence didn't act alone. It couldn't have. Even if no Western agency was directly involved in the operation itself, the broader picture is clear: Ukraine's Main Directorate of Intelligence, its military, and even its top political leadership rely heavily on Western intelligence feeds. Ukraine is deeply embedded within NATO's intelligence-sharing architecture. The idea of a self-contained Ukrainian intel ecosystem is largely a thing of the past. These days, Kiev draws primarily on NATO-provided data, supplementing it with its own domestic sources where it can. That's the backdrop – a hybrid model that's become standard over the past two years. Now, let's look more closely at Operation Spider's Web itself. We know the planning took roughly 18 months and involved moving drones covertly into Russian territory, hiding them, and then orchestrating coordinated attacks on key airfields. So how likely is it that Western intelligence agencies had a hand in such a complex operation? Start with logistics. It's been reported that 117 drones were prepped for launch inside Russia. Given that numerous private companies in Russia currently manufacture drones for the war effort, it wouldn't have been difficult to assemble the necessary devices under that cover. That's almost certainly what happened. Components were likely purchased domestically under the guise of supplying the 'Special Military Operation.' Still, it's hard to believe Ukraine's Main Directorate of Intelligence could have pulled off this mass procurement and assembly alone. It's highly likely Western intelligence agencies played a quiet but crucial role – especially in securing specialized components. Then there's the explosives. If the operation's command center was located in the Ural region, as some suggest, it's plausible that explosives or components were smuggled in via neighboring CIS countries. That kind of border-hopping precision doesn't happen without outside help. In fact, it mirrors tactics long perfected by intelligence services in both the US and Western Europe. Because make no mistake: this wasn't just the CIA's playground. European services – particularly those in the UK, France, and Germany – possess the same capabilities to execute and conceal such an operation. The NATO intelligence community may have different national flags, but it speaks with one voice in the field. The real giveaway, however, lies in the timing of the strikes. These weren't blind attacks on static targets. Russia's strategic bombers frequently rotate bases. Commercial satellite imagery – updated every few days at best – simply can't track aircraft on the move. And yet these drones struck with exquisite timing. That points to a steady flow of real-time surveillance, likely derived from signals intelligence, radar tracking, and live satellite feeds – all tools in the Western intelligence toolbox. Could Ukraine, on its own, have mustered that kind of persistent, multidomain awareness? Not a chance. That level of situational intelligence is the domain of NATO's most capable agencies – particularly those tasked with monitoring Russian military infrastructure as part of their day job. For years now, Ukraine has been described in Western media as a plucky underdog using low-cost tactics to take on a larger foe. But beneath the David vs. Goliath narrative lies a more uncomfortable truth: Ukraine's intelligence ecosystem is now deeply embedded within NATO's operational architecture. Real-time feeds from US and European satellites, intercepts from British SIGINT stations, operational planning consultations with Western handlers – this is the new normal. Ukraine still has its own sources, but it's no longer running a self-contained intelligence operation. That era ended with the first HIMARS launch. Western officials, of course, deny direct involvement. But Russian investigators are already analyzing mobile traffic around the impact sites. If it turns out that these drones weren't connected to commercial mobile networks – if, instead, they were guided through encrypted, military-grade links – it will be damning. Not only would that confirm foreign operational input, it would expose the full extent of how Western assets operated inside Russia without detection. At that point, no amount of plausible deniability will cover the truth. The question will no longer be whether NATO participated – but how deep that participation ran.

NATO boss demands huge military spending hike
NATO boss demands huge military spending hike

Russia Today

timea day ago

  • Russia Today

NATO boss demands huge military spending hike

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has announced that he will propose a new military spending target totaling 5% of each member state's GDP during the bloc's June summit in The Hague. This would mark a sharp increase from the current 2% floor. Since assuming office in January, US President Donald Trump has intensified demands that the bloc's European members spend more on defense. He has repeatedly accused them of failing to shoulder the burden equitably. According to NATO's latest report, ten of its 32 members do not even spend 2% of GDP on defense, while the US remains by far the bloc's biggest contributor. Speaking during a press conference following a meeting of NATO defense ministers in Brussels on Thursday, Rutte said that they had 'agreed on an ambitious new set of capability targets,' which included 'air defense, fighter jets, tanks, drones, personnel, logistics and so much more.' The military bloc's chief proclaimed that he 'will propose an overall investment plan that would total 5% of GDP' in order to finance the outlined priorities. Under the scheme, 3.5% of each member state's GDP would go toward 'core defense spending,' with an additional 1.5% of GDP to be allocated each year for related investments, such as infrastructure and industry. Responding to a reporter's question as to whether there is any mechanism built into the plan that would help ensure its implementation in the long run, Rutte said that member states would 'commit to yearly plans showing the increase each year to make sure that you come to the new target of 5%.' In early May, Germany's Der Spiegel reported that the US ambassador to NATO, Matthew Whitaker, had warned member states that failure to agree to the new 5% benchmark could result in Trump declining to attend the summit in late June. Several weeks earlier, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that NATO only makes sense 'as long as it's a real defense alliance, not the United States and a bunch of junior partners that aren't doing their fair share.' Also in April, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth warned European NATO countries that the 'time of the United States... being the sole guarantor of European security has passed.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store