Libya’s continuing civil conflict erupted into violence,once again, as the forces of Khalifa Haftar who control vast areas in the eastand the south began to move to capture the capital, Tripoli, last week. Libyais fragmented though the UN brokered government of National Accord led by Fayezal-Sarraj is in place since 2016. It enjoys international recognition butexercises only limited authority in and around the capital and in some westernparts of the country.
The Libyan statecollapsed in 2011 after the deposition and death of Muammar Gaddafi, themilitary dictator, who had held the country together through brutal force since1969. He was then a twenty-seven-year-old colonel. Over the years he becameincreasingly erratic and a megalomaniac. He fed his infliction with large dosesof cash acquired from vast oil revenues; Libya holds the world’s tenth largestoil reserves.
Western countries indulged Gaddafi as long as theircompanies gained contracts. Problems arose when he allegedly began to sanctionthe use of terror in Europe against Western interests. Gaddafi was enragedbecause of military engagements with the US over Libya’s claims over the Gulfof Sidra. The bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in December 1988 over Scotlandcausing the death of 270 persons was attributed to Libyan agents making him apariah in the West. Gaddafi was forced, on account of UN sanctions, to handover one for trial who was convicted and imprisoned.
Gaddafi also developed chemical weapons and sought toclandestinely undertake a nuclear weapons programme but he decided to comeclean in 2003 and gave these up. However, this did not win him any kudos for hewas by then regarded by large sections of the international community asunstable. His control of Libya did not diminish though till the events of theArab spring of 2011. Beginning with Tunisia, protests against entrenchedgovernments spread to Egypt, Yemen, Syria, Bahrain and Libya.
Demonstrations began in Libya in February 2011 in Benghazi spreading to Tripoli. The Gaddafi regime reacted with fury leading to very large civilian casualties. UN intervention followed and a no-fly zone was established over Libya. When Gaddafi sought to circumvent it some Western countries bombed his forces emboldening the rebels.
In October 2011 Gaddafi who had, by then, fled from Tripoli to Sirte was killed by the rebels but the Libyan civil war did not end and the country has been in conflict ever since. It has gone through many tortuous convolutions. It has many militias with varied and competing agendas—sectarian, extremist and fundamentalist, nationalist.
There is no prospect for an early end to the return of peace and stability. Indeed, Haftar’s move on the capital has been precipitated by yet another UN attempt to broker an enduring political agreement. It is noteworthy that Haftar, now 75, is a one-time officer of the Libyan army who had fled to the US where he became a citizen.
Libyan state collapsewith Gaddafi’s death is not a unique phenomenon. Other seemingly strong statescontrolled by long-standing dictators who enjoyed international recognitionhave also collapsed after violent regime change. However, regime change neednot lead to state collapse. It did not do so in Egypt. Can any lessons be drawnfrom the contradictory Libyan and Egyptian examples?
Answers lie in thecomplexities of state structures including their military components, thewisdom of a country’s leaders, the intrinsic importance of the country to theinternational community as well as the balance of global forces at the relevanttime. The Libyan and Egyptian cases illustrate and validate some of thesefactors.
Egypt has known central authority, the core of its statestructure, since thousands of years. Modern Egypt can trace its foundation tothe early and mid-19thcentury and is not a colonial creation like Libya. Libyaconsists of three historical entities Tripolitania, Cyrenaica and Fezzan whichwere joined together under Italian rule. Thus, Egypt’s national consciousnessis stronger and its state has deeper roots.
More importantly the Egyptian army has been the cohesivebackbone of the state. Its unity remained intact because it maintained itspersonality while that of Libya became Gaddafi’s extension. The Egyptian armyheld the country together even though it ousted a popularly elected governmentof the Muslim Brotherhood which came into office after the Arab spring protestsforced Hosni Mubarak to resign after a three-decade rule. The Libyan armysplintered and its soldiers joined different militias.
The international standing and critical importance of Egypt and Libya also were markedly different for the international community. The former is one of the Arab world’s most important countries with its most powerful army.
Its destabilisation would have impacted West Asia to a far more significant extent than that of Libya and for that matter the Syrian civil war. Thus the international community stood behind the Egyptian army. Libya’s destabilisation has been undesirable too for European interests because it has led to migration.
However, the real adverse effect has been felt within Libya or southwards in the Sahel region and this has not affected the interests of the great powers. Besides, oil to has continued to flow from Libya.
Ultimately, authentic states with firmly and historicallyrooted national consciousness and entrenched state structures and wise leaderscan cushion the impact of sudden and violent regime change. Those that lackthese find it difficult. Developments in Egypt and Libya over the past decadeoffer instructive case studies.