Uncertainty surrounds Haftar’s move in Libya

Uncertainty still surrounds the fate of the alliance between the General Command of the Libyan National Army (LNA) and the Tobruk-based parliament after Field-Marshal Jalifa Haftar announced the 2015 Skhirat political agreement was a “thing of the past” and his “acceptance of the popular mandate” to rule Libya.

Haftar’s April 27 decision is likely to cause confusion in the ranks of the pro-LNA camp. This, experts say, does not seem to serve his interests at this stage and could above all benefit the Islamists and their allies.

The Parliament, headed by Aguila Saleh, derives its international legitimacy from the Skhirat Agreement. Its electoral legitimacy was supposed to expire one year after the elections.

A number of observers see the step taken by Haftar as primarily targeting the parliament in Tobruk, since the other civil bodies that derive their legitimacy from the Skhirat political agreement are in Tripoli and Haftar has been engaged in battle against them for over a year.

The same observers believe that Haftar is taking this step to try and cut off the path for any future political process, especially following the painful setbacks recently suffered by his army after losing the cities of Sorman and Sabratha, which had been under the LNA’s control since the beginning of the military operations against Tripoli, and the loss of a number of other cities that the LNA controlled for about two weeks.

Many warn of the adverse fallout of Haftar’s move on the cohesion of the pro-LNA camp east of the country, considering that Saleh will not accept the prospect of being sidelined or excluded and sees himself as a major player in the political process, in addition to his association with local, regional and international backers.

Although Saleh and members of the parliament in Tobruk have yet to issue explicit reactions to Haftar’s announcement that he would take power in Libya, sources confirmed that there are ongoing mediation efforts between the two sides to find a compromise that would prevent the pro-LNA camp from splintering.

At the same time Haftar called on Libyan tribes to give him a “mandate” to take power, Saleh presented an initiative to move forward with the political process, which many viewed as a conflict in stances between the two parties.

After Haftar announced on April 27 he would accept a mandate to rule the country, Stephanie Williams, head of the United Nations Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL), made a phone call to Saleh welcoming the political initiative he presented.

The UN mission said that Williams contacted Saleh to “discuss” the latest developments in Libya “as part of her continued efforts to bring an end to the ongoing fighting and seek a political solution for the Libyan crisis through reaching out to all Libyan interlocutors.”

The UN Mission made it clear on its Twitter page that the conversation between the two parties “touched on Saleh’s recent initiative, which Williams considered a positive sign. She welcomed all inclusive initiatives that aim to end the fighting & division & call for the return to the political dialogue within the framework of Berlin Conference’s outcomes.”

Through this move, Haftar could be sending messages to the international community that tipping the balance of power in favour of the Turkey-backed Government of National Accord (GNA) led by Fayez al-Sarraj will not compel him to any negotiations that do not meet his conditions, and that a military settlement is still his choice despite the setbacks he suffered.

Over the past few days, and in light of the strikes against the LNA in western Libya, some countries, including the United Kingdom, have called for the resumption of the political process. This move has deepened suspicions that the West could be supporting or condoning Turkish intervention to create a new balance of power in western Libya that might convince the eastern region and the tribes supporting the LNA of the implausibility of a military solution, and compel Haftar to accept a settlement that could accommodate the goals of the Islamists and their international and regional backers.