The EU must actively back Libya’s new National Dialogue

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent in any way the editorial position of Euronews.

Competing outside interests have fanned the flames of internal discord in Libya. European policymakers must show an active interest in this new initiative, rather than falling back repeatedly on the failed formulas of the past, Ashraf Boudouara writes.

ADVERTISEMENT

Libya is again at a crossroads. One path is marked “Dead End” — that’s the path we are on. 

It’s a path to nowhere because expecting those who will lose power in elections — and with it their financial interests — to agree to organise elections is like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas. 

Turkeys never do, but this is the process the UN is leading. 

The other, more rational path is to support the new Libyan-led National Dialogue recently launched by Prince Mohammed El Senussi, the legitimate heir to the Senussi Crown of Libya, to break the deadlock. 

Rising above narrow interests to reunite our divided country, this new National Dialogue is gathering pace and capturing hearts and minds across all factions of our country. 

It’s the only realistic path at this crucial intersection. It embodies a patriotic vision centred on inclusivity, legitimacy, democratic governance and Libyan national identity, and Libyans expect Europe’s active support in this re-found hope for our country.

A Libya in disarray impacts Europe’s future, too

The political failures since 2011 have been unequivocal, leaving Libya in disarray. We have suffered multiple civil wars. Elections have been promised, cancelled, or indefinitely delayed multiple times. 

Multiple governments — appointed by non-Libyans if we agree to call things as they are — have delivered dividends only for narrow interests, thus deepening divides rather than bridging them. 

Thousands have lost their lives due to a lack of governance, an inability to provide citizens with security, and sorely lacking economic development and infrastructure due to endemic corruption.

The implications for Europe are far-reaching. From a lack of security on its southern flank that has seen destabilising elements take root, increased illegal migration to the continent (2023 saw a whopping 2,200 migrants die on their way to reach Europe’s shores), to energy insecurity as a result of global instability which could have been easily offset with access to Libya’s vast reserves (our country is home to 48 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, representing North Africa’s largest supply), the situation could not be any more serious for European strategic interests. 

And although some countries have been more engaged than others, it is apparent that Europe simply has no coherent vision for the future of Libya. At times, different European countries, for example France and Italy, have even been on opposing sides.

A true, Libyan-led grassroots dialogue

But now, in the face of a seemingly intractable impasse, a new and realistic hope for a better future is rapidly taking hold across the country. 

Just weeks ago, on the occasion of Libyan Independence Day, Crown Prince El Senussi delivered his annual address. This has become a highlight in the country’s calendar for many. 

And while in previous years his words were primarily focused on providing strength and hope to his countrymen, this year he did so in a far more concrete way, announcing the launch of an ongoing new Libyan-led National Dialogue.

Unlike any of the previous initiatives seen, this dialogue is truly Libyan-led and grassroots under the leadership of Prince Mohammed. 

Announcing an impressive roster of Libyans who have travelled to meet with him in capitals around the world, the extent to which this project is truly inclusive is distinctive. 

From currently serving political officials to community leaders and elders from across the land, to military leaders, academics, the youth and many others, they have all come to see the Crown Prince with the same message in mind: the time has come to work together to create a truly united Libya.

What can we learn from Libya’s history?

As Prince Mohammed reminded those present, an important fact that has been under-appreciated is that Libya faced similar, though of course not identical, challenges immediately after World War II. 

ADVERTISEMENT

The ravages of the multi-decade Italian colonisation, World War II itself where Libya was a field of battle, set in the context of the same tribal, regional and ethnic affiliations and fissures you see today, combined to create a political landscape possibly even worse than Libya faces today. 

But immediately after, Libya found a way out to herald in what is commonly referred to now as its Golden Era.

It did so by relying on its own cultural and historic norms, falling back on its own national identity, to implement political processes and constructs that had intrinsic legitimacy, the necessary national significance to be unifying, as well as the necessary symbols and institutions that fostered loyalty and patriotism to make reconciliation and nation building possible. 

Starting in 1949, in under two years, the last National Dialogue reached a consensus to adopt the 1951 Independence Constitution.

It set up a democratic constitutional monarchy, with an elected parliament and representative governance. It established a bicameral legislature comprising a Senate and a House of Representatives, allowing elected officials to voice the concerns of the populace. 

ADVERTISEMENT

There was also of course an independent and much-respected judiciary. This framework aimed to ensure a balance of power between the monarchy and the legislative branch, providing avenues for citizen participation and fostering a democratic foundation.

Elections were held, and women were allowed to vote, offering citizens the opportunity to engage in the political process and express their preferences. In fact, women had the right to vote in Libya before they did in Switzerland and Portugal.

Europe can still have a positive impact on Libya

There are many models of democratic constitutional monarchy in the world today including Sweden, the United Kingdom, Spain, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Malaysia and Japan. 

Each evolved from and is consistent with the country’s own history, culture and national identity. It was the same in Libya.

Libya’s new National Dialogue should be seen as an opportunity for European leaders to finally have a positive impact on our country. 

ADVERTISEMENT

To date, by any measure, foreign interventions have contributed significantly to instability in our country. Competing outside interests, including amongst European countries, have fanned the flames of internal discord.

There is a need for a paradigm shift, especially amongst European countries, to support the new National Dialogue launched by the crown prince, a homegrown approach to stability and progress in Libya, that is taking hold and has the necessary ingredients for success. 

European policymakers must show an active interest in this new initiative, rather than falling back repeatedly on the failed formulas of the past. The time for action is now.

Ashraf Boudouara is a Libyan political analyst and the Chairman of the National Conference for the Return of the Constitutional Monarchy.

At Euronews, we believe all views matter. Contact us at [email protected] to send pitches or submissions and be part of the conversation.

ADVERTISEMENT

Source link

#actively #Libyas #National #Dialogue

Why is a former NATO chief lobbying for a CSTO member? | VIEW

It is easy to forget in this time of war in Ukraine that NATO is an organisation supposed to enable peace.

So, why would anyone raise questions when a past NATO secretary general goes to a country not in the NATO alliance to foster or pitch peace between it and its long-term rival and neighbour?

This happened in mid-March when former Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen visited Armenia — an ex-Soviet nation in the Caucasus — trying to negotiate a peace treaty with its neighbour Azerbaijan after a conflict two years ago. 

But when Armenia is not just a member of Russia’s six-nation CSTO military alliance, but the chair of the organisation — and the former NATO chief was being paid by the Armenian government for the visit — it calls for some answers.

Rasmussen didn’t mention this in any of the interviews, tweets, and media articles he generated, something he should have done even when his transactional relationship with Russia’s military ally is listed in the EU’s lobbyist register

By not being upfront, he’s been disingenuous, which is unbecoming of a man of his status.

Rasmussen still surprised many — and triggers a bot army

But the real surprise is what he said while the Armenians were paying. In the most significant media interview of his visit, he raised the prospects for peace, and extolled the undeniable economic benefits for the people of Armenia if a peace treaty is signed with their neighbour. 

He also raised the fact that to achieve that peace, the status of Nagorno-Karabakh — an unrecognised majority Armenian ethnic breakaway state inside the borders of Azerbaijan — needs to be settled.

In that, he has a point: whether or not Armenia is friends with Russia — and membership of both Moscow’s Eurasian Economic Union and its military alliance could be read as a hint that they might be close — doesn’t change the fact that peace with the neighbours tends to benefit every country.

His view that peace is good and economic progress even better nonetheless sent the social media warriors berserk. 

Rasmussen was soon being assailed, as James Jay Carafano of the Heritage Foundation once described, by “more trolls than ever appeared in The Lord of Rings”. 

One even accused him of basically doing Azerbaijan’s public relations for them. If only they knew.

Are Armenia’s government and diaspora headed for a split?

Yet perhaps the Armenian government picked the right lobbyist. 

Far from telling the powerful Armenian diaspora in the US and France — who have long influenced the foreign policy direction for the Armenian state — what they want to hear, he told it as it is. 

Peace and economic cooperation with neighbouring Azerbaijan is, ultimately, the only viable route to a better life for the poor and undeniably long-suffering citizens of Armenia when the alternative remains continued Russian-dependent isolation.

To ex-Soviet-state-watchers such as myself, it has appeared for some time that the paths of the Armenian state and Armenian diaspora have been diverging. 

Like in my own Lithuania, the first few years of Armenian independence saw its leaders drawn from the diaspora. 

Then, after Armenia won a war against Azerbaijan in the early 1990s, they came from Nagorno-Karabakh, the Azerbaijani territory they occupied in victory. 

While ignoring four UN resolutions — supported by every single NATO country in successive votes — upholding the legal status of the region as a sovereign territory of Azerbaijan, the diaspora has long lobbied for recognition of Armenian-occupied Nagorno-Karabakh, also called Artsakh, as an independent state.

Meanwhile, Armenia and Azerbaijan are being fair and measured

But in the last two years, things have changed. Azerbaijan won back the majority of Nagorno-Karabakh in a conflict in 2020. Today, only a rump remains under Armenian control. 

Few serious international experts today would argue against the view that it is only a matter of time before this matter is settled — and in favour of international law.

It is not hard to read between the lines and conclude Rasmussen is merely voicing the conclusion of his own Armenian government client on the direction of travel, perhaps expressing what, for political reasons, they themselves have found it difficult to say publicly. 

Indeed, the social media army that descended on Rasmussen were perhaps revealing their frustration that their version of Nagorno-Karabakh’s future may be slipping away.

Was Rasmussen right to go? Certainly, he should have been more upfront that this was a paid work trip.

But his visit appeared to open the door for Yerevan to speak with more clarity than before about their own agenda: right after he departed, Armenian PM Nikol Pashinyan criticised the CSTO and tweeted his conviction that there would be a peace treaty with Azerbaijan. 

He then said the “international community must strongly support this narrative”. Azerbaijan responded through their Foreign Ministry spokesperson Aykhan Hajizada, who said that “territorial integrity and sovereignty must prevail in our region”. 

They were some of the fairest, most measured words said by the two nations in response to each other in public for years.

Rasmussen called for arming Armenia instead

Since he departed, Rasmussen has slightly changed his tune. Perhaps those Lord of the Rings trolls are having their effect. 

In an op-ed for Project Syndicate, he proposed the EU armed Armenia to prevent another conflict with Azerbaijan.

The EU, of course, can’t provide enough arms to Ukraine or even itself, but perhaps that message at least lessened the Twitter attacks.

Still, Rasmussen has certainly shone a light on the surprising reality that Armenia’s real long-term ally, like it or not, has to be its neighbour and sworn enemy, Azerbaijan.

_Saul Anuzis is a Lithuanian-American former advisor to the Lithuanian independence movement Sąjūdis and a former member of the Republican National Committee in the US. _

At Euronews, we believe all views matter. Contact us at [email protected] to send pitches or submissions and be part of the conversation.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent in any way the editorial position of Euronews.

Source link

#NATO #chief #lobbying #CSTO #member #VIEW