Home Opinions Libyan-Libyan dialogue in its new version

Libyan-Libyan dialogue in its new version

871
0
SHARE
Internet

The front of supporting the continuation of crisis

 By: Idris Tayeb Lamin*

Increasingly complications of Libyan crisis make it hard for any observant to fully understand all affecting factors, especially those

Idris Tayeb Lamin
Idris Tayeb Lamin

originating from reactions to specific developments that one party regard as against of his interest, whether this ideation of interest is true or just reflection of ideological concepts of interest that ignores the concept of interest with its inclusive and strategic meanings.

Without short historical account of the nature of the conflict, its mechanisms and developments, it won’t be possible to understand political connotations of the positions taken by the two main parties to the conflict, from outcomes of political dialogue brokered by the United Nations for a whole long year between the elected House of Representatives and allies from one side, and Libya Dawn alliance with General National Congress from the other side, which is considered to be the first agreement between the two parties throughout the bloody conflict characterized by all the ugliness of “breaking the bone” war politically, military and media, therefore both parties rejected – and often with the same argument – the results of political dialogue proposed by UN.

We can’t disagree that the conflict – in its core – was a political one between group that wants to practice politics through commitment to electoral results, and between other group wants to acquire political gains with the powers of gun, because it failed to achieve desired results, in an obvious attempt to re-produce the scenario of Muamar Gaddafi in 1969, which is very tempting for some as he succeeded to remain in power for more than four decades.

Although, the first party is stationed in the east due to security and procedural problems related to the convention of the new elected  parliament whether in the capital or Benghazi, and the other side is positioned in the western region due to the presence of former authority influence, but the conflict wasn’t regional (east and west), as the first side has many allies in the west (Zintan, remnants of the army aligned with the HOR) and the second party has many allies in the west (sheild forces, revolutionaries councils, Ansar Al-Sharia, Al-Qaeda, IS), therefore each party tried to exploit his own (Trojans) in the opposite side to accomplish military gains, and political gains even through the dialogue brokered by the UN.

But, the results of political dialogue and the announcement of final agreement, attached with annex 1 of the proposed Government of National Accord (GNA), accompanied by media show in which the former UN envoy, Bernardino Leon, contributed in, caused great confusion in the political scene, and caused new dimension which is (regional) dimension, it happened because how the elected parliament dealt with mechanism of government nominations, it cemented the idea of ​​the three regions, which do not exist in all official, legal or constitutional documents.

Based on this deal, it is necessary for any proposal to include two dimensions: political one to resolve political dispute between the two rival parties, and regional one to satisfy the three regional parties in the form of balanced representation for each party in the ministerial council.

But all (political) rival factions – especially the HoR – forget the idea of representation in the fever of regional whirlwind. Therefore, the representative parties in the ministerial council became regional representatives. We couldn’t anymore deal with member of HoR as representatives in the HoR, but as being part of one of the three regions regardless of political opinion; that’s why we saw strict objection by both sides to dialogue results (through protests), blocking the voting and the accusations against the UN envoy of being biased against the other side. The authority of taking official decisions centered in the hands of the GNC and elected the HoR, both parties circumvented to prevent the vote on the political agreement with all possible ways.

In this serial political atmosphere, successive collapse of state institutions and the deterioration of lives of citizens to the lowest forms at all living standards, enemy brothers surprisingly found that Libyans are brothers, they don’t need any party to facilitate talks between them.

The HoR side ones, who once accused Libya Dawn of being terrorists, saying that “just sitting with those terrorists is great concession”, we see them now saying “we need no one, I can sit with my brother face to face”, forgetting that the HoR is the one who asked for international help, and cautioned – part of maintaining the constants – on members of dialogue committee not to sit face to face with Libyan (brother) nor shake hands with.

The chairmanship of the GNC and its extremist members, who once accused the HoR of being infiltrator for the west and demanding foreign intervention, now talk about the new invention called: Libyan- Libyan dialogue; as if what happened through the whole last year was Leon –Libyan dialogue.

Trying to exploit efforts of the past year to bridge, the deep division between parties of authority in Libya, whether litigate or the de facto, is like jumping in the void, depending on sole proposal: (we are all brothers), which has nothing to do with the nature of the political and military bloody conflict between enemies using practices worse than that used by Israel against Palestinians. All possible political, military and media weapons were used during this conflict at all lowest levels. So what brothers are we talking about?

Simply, ignoring political solution represented in ending division in state institutions, through forming one government for one state, is practically, forming front of enemy brothers in both sides to support the continuation if the crisis.

The dialogue, in the context of “we are brothers” proposal, is done through what is called (national dialogue) not talks to resolve bloody political disputes. This national dialogue needs official guardian for organization, funding and support. This guardian can’t, under any circumstances, be but national consensus government represent all Libyans with no exceptions.

Horse in front of the cart not cart in front of horse

We can’t hold national dialogue in a country where brothers are waiting any chance to end the other, nor in atmosphere of political conflict on limited (transitional) authority. Thinking that Libyan-Libyan dialogue, in its new version, can achieve political results to resolve the problem of division is better formula than that of the agreement mediated by the UN is pure delusion, as this agreement is the better we can achieve.

Current situation

We have outgoing GNC, and outgoing HoR regarded as caretaker parliament until handing power to another elected institution. What we need now is (sole) government for (one) country, the world can deal with and help to overcome its crisis. Any other proposal means continuation of the crisis, which is obvious that not the GNC nor the HoR will pay its price, in the land of false fraternity.

*A Libyan Diplomat and Writer

Translated By LIBYAPROSPECT: Source