by Wayne White
A robust new military challenge to what passes for the Libyan central government has further destabilized the country and placed Western and other diplomatic missions there in greater danger. Although definitions for “failed states” vary, there should be no doubt now that Libya has crossed that line — one [...]]]>
by Wayne White
A robust new military challenge to what passes for the Libyan central government has further destabilized the country and placed Western and other diplomatic missions there in greater danger. Although definitions for “failed states” vary, there should be no doubt now that Libya has crossed that line — one it has been flirting with for quite a while. Under the circumstances, it is now time for the US, and other governments with diplomatic and civilian missions in Libya, to give serious, prompt consideration to evacuating their personnel.
Libya’s lacking security fundaments
The Libyan situation has been tenuous, violent, and jolting from crisis to crisis particularly since last year. Most militias of various local, tribal, and ideological affiliations that fought against Muammar Qadhafi’s regime remain under arms, in part because of Libya’s failure to establish a sizeable, fully trained national army or police force. They clash with each other and assert local autonomous rights, with some backing factions in the Libyan parliament, the General National Congress (GNC). Without other means of maintaining security, the government keeps a number of militias on its payroll for just that reason.
The conflicting militias have caused discord on the streets of Tripoli and the large eastern city of Benghazi; they control neighborhoods and other key pieces of real estate — even sometimes menacing the government for which they supposedly work.
The two dominant militias affecting government affairs in Tripoli have been the Islamist “Central Shield,” based in Libya’s third largest city, Misrata, and a group of secular-oriented militias based in the mountain region centered upon Zintan. They are aligned, respectively, with the Islamist and secular wings of the GNC.
This division within the GNC has significantly paralyzed that fairly elected body charged, among other things, with overseeing the drafting of a constitution as a prelude to the election of a permanent legislature.
The GNC’s original writ ran out in early February, so it extended its own mandate to finish the appointment of a constitutional drafting committee and to maintain continuity. Ever since, it has been branded by many Libyans — as well as self-appointed federalist rivals in eastern Libya — as illegitimate, with calls for it to step down.
The experiences of Libyan prime ministers reflect the dangerous instability plaguing the country. The GNC dismissed longstanding Prime Minister Ali Zeidan in March amidst a tiff over the weak Libyan navy’s failure to stop a tanker with bootleg crude from leaving a port controlled by upstart eastern Federalist and militia commander, Ibrahim Jathran. Yet Zeidan soldiered on despite being kidnapped in late 2013 by an Islamist militia. Then the GNC named Abdullah al-Thinni interim prime minister for two weeks. After gunmen attacked his family compound, al-Thinni resigned, but continues to serve pending the naming of a replacement.
In addition to its seriously flawed, erratic security and central authority, Libya’s governance at all levels is dysfunctional. To a great extent, Qadhafi is to blame. Inheriting a rather decentralized state from the late King Idris, Qadhafi played tribes and regions against each other to maintain power for 42 years. Qadhafi’s bizarre, ramshackle “Jamahiriya” concept of governance degraded rather than reinforced a sense of Libyan civil society, and important governmental and technical skills were woefully neglected. Libya is hugely dependent on foreign companies and contractors for a host of services.
The last key pillar that crumbled from underneath Libya’s waning post-Qadhafi societal stability was the implosion of the country’s oil exports from roughly 1.3 million barrels per day (bpd) in 2012 to only around 200,000 bpd since early this year. Since 2013, most export terminals and inland oilfields have been shut down by a mix of eastern federalist challengers, angry workers, disgruntled guards, or local militias.
Enter General Haftar
Libya’s latest travails stem from a robust challenge to the central government from the self-proclaimed Libyan National Army (LNA) led by former General Khalifa Haftar. Haftar denounced the central government back in February, but his appearance went almost unnoticed outside Libya.
On May 16, however, forces organized by Haftar struck extremist militias in Benghazi (especially Ansar al-Sharia) with troops, artillery and even helicopters “to cleanse the city of terrorists.” Intense, bloody fighting continued through much of the weekend resulting in over 200 casualties. On the 18th, Haftar loyalists, reinforced with pro-secular militia elements from Zintan, attacked the GNC in Tripoli, ransacking parliament, and seizing a member and two staffers for allegedly aiding extremists. Pro-Haftar Colonel Muktar Fernana declared the “freezing of the GNC.”
Since May 18, in the east, Haftar has secured the support of two Libyan Air Force (LAF) bases, and federalist renegade Jathran. Libya’s Special Forces commander even instructed his men in Benghazi to join Haftar’s effort. Then, the LAF’s most senior officer, Col. Gomaa al-Abbani, declared his support for Haftar on the 20th, quickly followed on the 21st by the Interior Ministry, Libyan UN Ambassador Ibrahim al-Dabashi (who said Haftar’s “Operation Dignity of Libya” was “not a coup…but a nationalist move”), as well as the biggest GNC political bloc, the secular National Forces Alliance (NFA). NFA leader Mahmoud Jibril said Libya had been “drowning in a swamp of terrorism.”
In addition, former Prime Minister Zeidan declared his support for Haftar from European exile, and sitting Prime Minister al-Thinni has called upon the GNC to stop working. Late on the 21st, Haftar appeared on TV, calling upon the country’s judiciary to form a “civilian presidential high council” to name a cabinet and oversee a transition toward the election of a new parliament.
Haftar’s challenge might seem refreshing to some, but the situation on the ground has deteriorated markedly. Following al-Abbani’s statement of support, various elements launched rockets against and burned offices on LAF bases in Tripoli. Libya’s Navy commander was wounded in an assassination attempt in Tripoli yesterday. On the 20th, a Chinese engineer was murdered by gunmen in Benghazi.
In Tripoli, more fighting took place May 21, with rockets falling on a residential area last night. GNC members tried to convene at another locale to elect a prime minister, but gave up without a quorum and after coming under rocket fire. That prompted GNC Speaker Nuri Abu Sahmain’s call on the 21st for Misrata’s Islamist “Central Shield” militia to take the field against Haftar to protect the remainder of the GNC and re-secure parliament’s original premises. In response to Sahmain’s call, Misrata’s notoriously tough militiamen were observed taking up positions in the capital this morning.
Foreign diplomats facing more danger
The foreign diplomatic community could hardly remain unaffected. Already, gunmen had attacked the Russian Embassy in Tripoli in October 2013, after which Zeidan reiterated his “unlimited commitment to the…security” of all diplomatic missions. Yet, as we have seen, Zeidan could not even protect himself.
The Jordanian ambassador was kidnapped by Islamic militants in March to free an extremist held in Jordan, with the ambassador released in April in exchange for the prisoner. The Jordanian Embassy was subsequently evacuated. Two kidnapped Egyptian diplomats were only freed in January when Egypt agreed to swap a hard-line Islamist militia leader detained in Cairo. Both cases set dangerous precedents.
After recent threats, Algeria sent its special forces to extract its embassy staff from Tripoli on May 16, and then evacuated all Algerian state oil personnel on the 19th. The Saudi Embassy staff also left that day. Likewise, personnel of several major oil companies and private businesses have fled overseas.
In this veritable maelstrom of violence amidst uncertainty regarding which side controls what in Tripoli, all foreign diplomatic missions and other foreigners are at considerable risk. With Islamic extremists under vigorous attack, there is also a greater danger that such elements will attempt to retaliate against foreign governments imagined to encourage or welcome what Haftar & Co. have been doing.
This makes the US a prime target. A number of Islamic militant elements (like Ansar al-Sharia, formally declared a terrorist group by Washington), militias, or gunmen could attack the US embassy in Tripoli. If so, there is no effective Libyan security to bar the way.
Last week, the Obama administration began positioning US military assets in Sicily to carry out a potential emergency extraction of embassy personnel, including 200 troops from the Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force and MV-22 Osprey helicopters. On the 20th, the Pentagon said 60 more Marines were sent plus more Ospreys (now totaling 8). To avoid flying into an already “hot” situation in which a facility is already under attack or surrounded (like the one that wounded 4 US Navy SEALS aboard Ospreys in an aborted attempt to rescue US civilians in South Sudan last December), it would be prudent to execute that contingency plan as soon as possible.
During my State Department career, I participated several times in final deliberations over such decisions. There were always those who opposed withdrawing (regardless of the risk of staying), arguing that leaving the countries in question would reduce the US’ ability to influence events on the ground. Of course, in this case, for quite some time now the US and other Western diplomatic missions have had precious little impact on what has been unfolding in Libya.
Photo: The French embassy in Tripoli, Libya was bombed on April 23, 2013. It was the first attack on the French embassy in the capital.
]]>by Wayne White
An ominous deterioration in the situation in Libya recently has been overshadowed by media stories about the Oct. 27 “60 Minutes” report on the Benghazi tragedy featuring a witness now known to have given conflicting evidence to the FBI. Meanwhile, developments in Libya reflect a sharp decline [...]]]>
by Wayne White
An ominous deterioration in the situation in Libya recently has been overshadowed by media stories about the Oct. 27 “60 Minutes” report on the Benghazi tragedy featuring a witness now known to have given conflicting evidence to the FBI. Meanwhile, developments in Libya reflect a sharp decline in the already tenuous authority of the central government, heightened violence, clashes between militias, as well as new demands for regional autonomy and minority rights already impacting seriously on Libyan oil and gas exports. Libya now could be drifting closer to what might be called a “failed state” scenario in terms of governance.
Continued, rising lawlessness over the past month has been evident across the country. Illustrating how little authority the police and army have in eastern Libya, the former rebel “Benghazi Brigade” announced on Oct. 22 its arrest of several men allegedly behind weekly car bombings in the city, including three Chadians. A Libyan military source called the detention a “theatrical act” in which armed groups like the one involved in this action “are trying to show…they can replace the army.”
Also in the east, militiamen from the al-Zawiya tribe seized up to 200 Egyptian drivers and demanded the release of associates being held in Egypt for weapons smuggling. On Oct. 18, gunmen murdered the head of the military police’s investigative division outside his vacation home in Benghazi, the day before the same happened to a local army commander in the eastern city of Derna, and two Libyan soldiers were stabbed to death during a militia attack on their base nearby.
The security situation in the capital of Tripoli also has skidded downward in the wake of the brief kidnapping of Prime Minister Ali Zeidan on Oct. 10 by supposedly government-supported militiamen. Last week there were two outbreaks of heavy fighting (including the use of truck mounted anti-aircraft guns) between rival militias. The Nov. 7 battle began when fighters from a powerful militia in nearby Misrata entered Tripoli to avenge the death two days before of a militia leader from that militia-dominated city (Libya’s 3rd largest) still not under central government authority. With militias on the rampage, many Tripoli residents have armed themselves, and some have erected street barricades to block militiamen from entering their neighborhoods.
Triggers of militia violence are varied and unpredictable: personal vendettas, territory, stolen vehicles, and disputes over smuggled goods including drugs. Although the government tried to harness militias to function as security forces subject to the authorities, most report mainly to their own leaders. On Nov. 10, Zeidan called for a popular effort to compel the militias to disarm peacefully, something unlikely to succeed. And perhaps setting in place a trigger for a future outbreak of violence, Zeidan stated that government payments to militias operating beyond police and army authority would end on Dec. 31.
It comes as no surprise that Libya’s critical oil sector also has been in crisis for several months now, with 2 million barrels per day of normal exports falling to only a few hundred thousand. In the east, militias charged with protecting terminals and fields, joined by oil workers, for several months have squeezed or even blocked exports to pressure the government for various political and work-related concessions. Over the weekend they instituted a de-facto export blockade.
Off in the west, Berber protesters demanding minority rights seized Libya’s large Mellitah natural gas and oil complex on the coast 50 miles west of Tripoli last month. Mellitah is the terminus of the vital Greenstream pipeline operated jointly by Libya’s National Oil Corporation (NOC) and the Italian Eni. Yesterday, the Berbers shut it down, cutting off the flow of natural gas to Italy.
Back east, militia-associated elements seeking eastern autonomy, a fair regional share of oil revenues, and holding all key export terminals in the region announced on Nov. 3 the unilateral formation of an eastern regional “Government of Barqa.” On the 10th, this shadowy government established a companion oil company based temporarily in Tobruk to market Libyan crude independent of Libya’s NOC. Under the more relaxed pre-Qadhafi rule of King Idris, Barqa was a semi-autonomous eastern region. Quite a few eastern Libyans reportedly are skeptical of this move, however, because they believe the “autonomy” effort is meant merely to serve the narrower agendas of particular militias.
Nonetheless, the militias have the power, and the central government in Tripoli has had to implore foreign companies not to purchase oil from entities or militias instead of NOC. Prime Minister Zeidan also announced on the 10th that with hydrocarbon exports imperiled, the Libyan government could be unable to cover its expenditures beginning in either December or January if export problems cannot be resolved (especially those in the east).
Not surprisingly, foreign confidence in Libya’s hydrocarbon sector is fading fast. ExxonMobil already has greatly reduced its activity in Libya, with Marathon considering the sale of its portion of a joint venture with the Libyans. And BP has begun talks to relinquish its stake in a large joint natural gas explorations project with NOC. Separate entities holding major terminals turning away foreign tankers in recent days will only frighten foreign investors that much more.
Libyan instability overall also has adverse implications for neighboring countries. In addition to the gun-running into Egypt noted earlier, the remote and lawless Libyan southeast provides a convenient haven for elements linked to al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and similar extremist groups that have raided into Mali and Algeria. Farther north on Oct. 30, a suicide bomber struck in the Tunisian resort city of Sousse. Another bomber was apprehended in a nearby seaside town along with five more plotters nabbed in Sousse that Tunisia’s Islamist government said were members of the radical Ansar al-Sharia movement. All those caught were Tunisians, but they reportedly sortied from Libya, where Tunisian extremists evidently have exploited disorder even in the north not far from Tripoli to obtain training, explosives and arms.
The iffy authority of the Libyan government and the power of the militias have hurt prospects for Western assistance aimed at stabilization because the central government in Tripoli is not a viable partner. Several NATO countries, including the US and the UK, want to train at least some legitimate security and military personnel, but there is concern that even these could end up behaving like militias or strengthen in a destabilizing manner only the security side of the government. In any case, British training will not begin until early next year, and Washington has not made a final decision on plans to train Libyan cadres outside Libya.
With war-weariness dominating Western thinking concerning regional intervention, no government is seriously pondering direct military involvement. As a result, the prospects for Libya seem grim. No real progress — instead quite the opposite — has come from purely domestic attempts to sort out Libya’s many problems since Muammar Qadhafi’s fall two years ago, so Libyan efforts to address this deteriorating situation do not seem likely to gain meaningful traction.
One of Libya’s Berber militiamen blocking the gas and crude oil complex in Nalut. Credit: Karlos Zurutuza/IPS
]]>by Wayne White
This weekend’s US capture of Nazih Abdul-Hamed Nabih al-Ruqai’I, better known by his alias, Anas al-Libi, might net only limited information of current intelligence value while potentially resulting in militant Islamist payback in what remains a very fragile Libya. Of no less than three al-Qaeda operatives bearing the alias [...]]]>
by Wayne White
This weekend’s US capture of Nazih Abdul-Hamed Nabih al-Ruqai’I, better known by his alias, Anas al-Libi, might net only limited information of current intelligence value while potentially resulting in militant Islamist payback in what remains a very fragile Libya. Of no less than three al-Qaeda operatives bearing the alias al-Libi (simply “the Libyan” in Arabic), Anas al-Libi could be the least significant overall. And should a Libyan militant Islamic group or militia decide to retaliate for this bold US grab, they are capable of doing significant harm.
Anas al-Libi’s former association with al-Qaeda is well-known, as are standing US indictments against him for actions related to the horrific 1998 East Africa bombing. Yet, relatively little seems to be known about how active he remained over the past few years. So the information he has might not be particularly useful if, for example, he was not knowledgeable about or involved in last year’s Benghazi consulate attack or other recent operations. US authorities apparently believe he has been working to expand al-Qaeda’s network in Libya (although perhaps not a certainty since he has been living in Tripoli without security).
By contrast, Abu Yahya al-Libi, killed by an American drone strike in northwest Pakistan in June 2012, stayed very close to both Osama Bin Laden and his successor, Ayman al-Zawahiri. He remained a key ideological hardliner within the core al-Qaeda leadership as well, right up to the time of his death. Abu Abdullah al-Libi, the former commander of the extremist al-Qaeda linked Libyan Fighting Group, participated in the overthrow of Muammar Qadhafi. Since then he had moved on to Syria with some of his veteran Libyan fighters to join the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) jihad against the regime of Bashar al-Assad. He quickly rose in stature within the al-Qaeda associated ISIL until he was one of its top commanders (some say its leader). Abu Abdullah al-Libi, however, reportedly was killed in fighting in northern Syria last month.
The operation to snatch Anas al-Libi has placed Libya’s weak central government in a difficult position. Although Prime Minister Ali Zeidan contacted Washington late on Oct. 6 asking for clarifications concerning the kidnapping, he stated today that Libyan-US relations would not be affected. Yet, he probably fears potential blowback because such unilateral US action is embarrassing (regardless of whether the US struck based on advance warning or an existing understanding regarding such security operations), and his government probably does not have much of an ability to prevent militant retaliatory action.
Vast areas of the country remain under the control of various militias (some of them extremist), tribes, or other local authorities such as those in charge of Libya’s third largest city, Misrata. Much of the government’s own security is provided by militias that did not stand down following Muammar Qadhafi’s ouster, and a variety of key assets (such as the country’s vital oil installations) currently are not under effective government control.
Some such militias allied to the government provide the only security available for high value targets like official buildings and embassies, but they have been of uneven reliability. Libyan security was unable to stop an angry mob from storming the Russian embassy compound in Tripoli on October 2 after a Russian woman killed a Libyan. No Russian embassy personnel were killed or injured, but the mob broke into the compound, one attacker was killed, and there was quite a bit of damage. Had a determined, well-armed extremist militia done so, the results would have been far worse. Citing fears that the Libyan government is unable to protect its staffers, Moscow ordered the embassy completely evacuated the next day.
A senior Libyan government security official who used to command an Islamist militia appeared supportive of the raid on Sunday, but said it reflected badly on the lack of such knowledge and power on the part of his own government. He warned there that would be a “strong reaction” by militant Islamists to “take revenge” for the al-Libi capture, and predicted contrary to American hopes: “This just won’t pass.” Meanwhile, various Libyan jihadists have taken to the Internet calling for the kidnapping of US and allied citizens as well as attacks on oil infrastructure, ships and aircraft.
Al-Qaeda figures like Anas al-Libi with blood on their hands should be targeted, regardless of whether they remain active, in order to remind other key operatives of their potential fate — no matter how much time passes. Yet, even in all-out conventional conflicts, actions from isolated attacks to major military campaigns are judged upon their plusses and minuses. It remains to be seen whether, on balance, scooping up al-Libi at this particular time in a friendly, but very shaky, Libya turns out to be a wise move.
Meanwhile, Washington must increase its vigilance and security substantially relating to the US mission in Tripoli in particular. The US probably should do likewise regarding its assets in Egypt. The lengthy Egyptian-Libyan border is highly porous, and Egypt’s ruling military still has not gotten a solid hold on the Egyptian security situation. Consequently, Egypt offers another fluid environment possibly of interest to Libyan extremists seeking payback.
]]>The crisis affecting Mali and southern Algeria is only the latest phase in a long pattern of conflict. The often nomadic Saharan Tuareg, with populations spreading far beyond northern Mali, have never had a stable relationship with the more settled populations to the south. They have been in rebellion or on [...]]]>
The crisis affecting Mali and southern Algeria is only the latest phase in a long pattern of conflict. The often nomadic Saharan Tuareg, with populations spreading far beyond northern Mali, have never had a stable relationship with the more settled populations to the south. They have been in rebellion or on the verge of it for much of the last 22 years, and Libya as well as Algeria have played disruptive supporting roles in the course of that troubled period.
The latest blow-up in the southern Sahara cannot be viewed in isolation, especially as various outside parties cast about for ways of resolving it. Mali, neighboring Niger, or both have been wracked by a series of rebellions, largely Tuareg (1990-1995, 2007-2009), and a mix of Tuareg and Islamic extremists in 2012-2013. Tuareg grievances have ranged from greater freedom from central governments based along the Niger River to the south, to, increasingly in Mali, demands for outright autonomy or independence. Beginning nearly a decade ago, they have been taking on more of a militant Islamic character (once again, mainly in Mali).
Muammar Qadhafi was involved as an enabler in the first rebellion in Niger in the 1990’s, providing weapons, training and safe haven for Tuareg rebels fighting and raiding in Niger. In 2009 he played a role in ending the second rebellion, but the rebels again enjoyed access to Libya. The current rebellion was enhanced greatly by the massive infusion of Libyan arms brought down from a fractured Libya by Tuaregs and other militants present there as a result of the previous episodes (with some southerners even used by Qadhafi as combatants in his vain, bloody effort to stave off defeat).
Lately, the focus has been on Algeria because of the 4-day ordeal at the Ain Amenas natural gas complex in the Algerian southeast. Much media coverage has been sympathetic to Algeria’s long struggle against Islamist “terrorism.” The facts cast Algeria in a somewhat darker light.
The authoritarian, dysfunctional, notoriously corrupt, and military-heavy elite in Algeria panicked after the Islamic Salvation Front (or FIS, based on its French title) won the first round of Algeria’s only truly fair national assembly elections in 1991. The military cancelled the second round in January 1992, replacing a President and possible progress toward greater democracy with a military junta and a brutal crackdown. The Islamists, most previously relatively moderate, took up arms against this ruthless cabal (with support from many ordinary, downtrodden and neglected Algerians more generally).
Algeria was destabilized amidst what became a virtual civil war through 1997, taking the lives of up to 200,000 people. Ironically, in crushing the uprising, the Algerian military used many of the same ruthless tactics employed by the French during their war to suppress Algerian independence. Later in the conflict, quite a few embittered Islamist fighters turned to extremism, with one offshoot eventually forming the militant Salafist Group for Call and Combat (or GSPC from its French name). Splinter elements of the GSPC took refuge from Algerian forces in the north of an impoverished Mali over a decade ago.
Long shunned by much of the international community for its various abuses in the 1990’s, Algeria, led by authoritarian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika (reelected with purportedly over 90% of the vote in 2009), broke out of its isolation after 9/11. A Bush Administration eager to rope in any assistance curbed the US’ policy of wariness toward the Algerian regime, viewing the latter’s long battle with Islamist “terrorism” as a valuable resource, despite its dismal track record otherwise.
Fragments of the GSPC later morphed into al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), also setting up shop across the border in Mali. Although the GSPC engaged in kidnappings, drug trafficking, killings and even occasional terrorism back in Algeria, Algerian security forces did relatively little to cooperate actively with countermeasures aimed against the GSPC and AQIM beyond their own borders (despite the near absence of Malian central governance in its Saharan north). While still serving with the US Intelligence Community during an operation against a dangerous GSPC cell in northern Mali some years ago (when Mali had asked for American and Algerian assistance), the Algerians remained largely passive.
For decades there also has been a desperate need for political change in an Algeria where far too little of its growing oil and gas revenues reach the bulk of the population. Yet, the “Arab Spring” fizzled there. Even though demonstrations (including self-immolations) occurred in many locales causing President Bouteflika to terminate (at least formally) a 19-year state of emergency and promise reform, little has changed. Many Algerians remain cowed by the sheer scale of brutality during the grueling internal warfare of the 1990’s.
Many aspects of the hostage crisis at Ain Amenas bear the hallmarks of the chequered performance of Algeria’s government and security forces. First off, after agreeing to allow France over-flights and to provide some intelligence related to the French blitzkrieg against the extremists in northern Mali, Algiers should have been bracing for potential trouble days before the French struck. Instead, Algerian security was caught off guard (despite their familiarity with this highly mobile foe and a nearby Algerian Army base). Next, Algiers resisted meaningful international cooperation and instead launched its own initially clumsy rescue attempt during which Algerian helicopters reportedly blasted trucks containing hostages (hence the grumbling in some foreign capitals).
Stepping back a bit, a major factor to bear in mind as this crisis evolves more broadly is whether the problem will remain primarily confined to Mali — especially if and when French, Malian, and African forces press deeper into northern Mali. Borders mean precious little in this trackless area to either AQIM or the Tuareg. This mess could easily spill over into the adjacent and equally ill-governed deserts of Niger or Mauritania.
Photo: Tuaregs at the January 2012 Festival au Désert in Timbuktu, just before the MNLA launched the Azawadi rebellion later that month. By Alfred Weidinger (Wikimedia Commons).
]]>