The UN plan for Libya risks failure, how negotiations can turn in renewed violence

 The beginning of conflict resolution negotiations does not mean the end of the war, but sometimes it represents the moment in which in a game of poker, the players show their cards. This similarity applies perfectly to the Libyan crisis when the United Nations prepares to host the political delegations that will have to elect a new Presidential Council and a new Government. However, just before the players reveal their cards, they may realize that the points are not enough. In this case, the Libyan parties are about to understand that they are not represented enough.

The scenes in which Libyan stakeholders are involved recall what already happened in 2014 in Skhirat when the UN gave birth to the Libyan Political Agreement (LPA) and the Government of National Agreement (GNA), recognized by the international community but rejected by the majority of the Libyans. All this starts with the lack of legitimacy of the actors invited to take part in the dialogue sessions facilitated by the United Nations. The same is happening today. Many names, almost all unknown. The majority attributable to the Muslim Brotherhood, the main culprit for the prolonged suffering of the Libyans. In fact, after losing the elections in 2014, the group used the violence of its armed groups to remove the elected government and throw the country into chaos.

The United Nations as well as the main foreign actors involved in the Libyan case are once again carrying out a series of initiatives which, however, do not take into account the requests of the Libyans. On the one hand, the meetings in Morocco are continuing, on the other hand, the UN action plan is preparing to receive delegations in Geneva.In the lists leaked online of the members of the delegations chose to conduct the negotiations, a question immediately arises: who chose them, who legitimized them?

If these names are confirmed, not only are the negotiations proposed by the UN doomed to fail, but they risk reigniting violence. Rightly or wrongly, tribes, militias, armed groups, media, and political parties have fought their war, sometimes spilling the blood of their youth, and today they are demanding their piece of cake. That makes it difficult for some actors to understand a possible exclusion from the negotiations. Furthermore, a dialogue to resolve a conflict should bring together the largest number of representatives of the various factions, not just those who share our vision. Once again, no name for the Gaddafi appears on the guest list. The same applies to southern Libya. More than a dialogue, it seems that the United Nations is trying to recycle the corrupt political class without any following.

Progress and setbacks characterize Libya's modern history: military, political, and social. The UN initiative is proving to be yet another setback, and the Libyans cannot accept to go back to 5 years ago, after all the suffering they have lived and continue to live. The approach of the international community cannot take into account internal dynamics. It cannot exclude one or more parts of society and accept that its interlocutors do not often correspond to the real actors on the ground. The only solution to the conflict is through a genuine dialogue open to all, with no upstream exclusions. If this is not possible, then the Latin saying "Si vis Pacem, Para Bellum" always applies, if you want peace, prepare for war.