In April 2019, Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar and his self-styled Libyan National Army launched an offensive to capture Tripoli from the U.N.-backed Government of National Accord seated there. Four months later, the result has been a virtual stalemate that has claimed over 1,000 lives. And while fighting on the ground is at a standstill, multiple regional actors continue providing air support and direct aid to either side. USIP’s Thomas Hill breaks down the current situation in Libya and the possibility for peace amid this deadly standoff.

In the devastated downtown, of Benghazi, Libya, ex-fighters warm themselves over a bonfire made from broken furniture in March 2018. (Declan Walsh/The New York Times)
In the devastated downtown, of Benghazi, Libya, ex-fighters warm themselves over a bonfire made from broken furniture in March 2018. (Declan Walsh/The New York Times)

The two sides have been stuck in a stalemate outside Tripoli for four months. Could this deadlocked situation convince Haftar or the U.N.-backed government to rethink their respective positions on a peaceful settlement?

At this point, it’s hard to imagine either side pushing for a political settlement. From Haftar’s position, he has staked his reputation—both with his international patrons and with the Libyan people—on his ability to deliver military victory. Anything short of that would be a failure and could lead to the collapse of his so-called Libyan National Army (LNA), which has shown signs of deep internal division in the past.

From the position of the Government of National Accord (GNA), a political settlement probably doesn’t seem optimal because there are signs the GNA and its allied militias might defeat the LNA on the battlefield. Why sue for peace when victory is possible? Or so the GNA thinking might go. With both the GNA and LNA factions focused on achieving a military solution, a peace settlement seems highly unlikely. 

Back in May, you testified that the U.N.-led peace process had failed, damaging its capacity to facilitate an end to the conflict. In early August, the U.N. managed to get all sides to agree to a temporary cease-fire. Could this help reestablish the U.N. as a mediating force?

I believe the U.N.-negotiated cease-fire lasted all of 24 hours, so I don’t have a great deal of confidence in the U.N.’s ability to mediate this conflict. In the last four months, Libyans on social media have increasingly voiced their frustration with U.N. Special Representative Ghassan Salame and the U.N. Support Mission in Libya’s (UNSMIL) effort to end the conflict. It would be an overstatement to say that the current conflict is the result of the U.N.’s inability to negotiate a peace settlement—that’s not true.  However, it is true that the U.N. has made mistakes and the UNSMIL mission has been severely hampered by its limited mandate. Additionally, you could argue that outside actors (e.g., the UAE, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, France, Qatar, and Turkey) have made the U.N.’s mission impossible.

At this point, I think the best option would be for France—a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council—to go back to the U.N. and request that UNSMIL be closed and a new U.N. mission be opened with an expanded mandate. The idea of an international peacekeeping force in Libya has been dismissed in the past, but I think the French, among others, should ask the U.N. to put that option back on the table for discussion.   

What role have regional actors played in fueling the conflict? What’s at stake in Libya for these states?

At the end of the day, it’s the Libyan people who need to make the conscious decision to either fight or reconcile with one another. But there is no doubt the current conflict is being fueled and prolonged by the role of outside actors. Most recently, Turkey and the UAE have increased their interventions by providing advanced weapons systems like drones. But Turkey and the UAE are not the only outside actors playing a significant role in the Libyan conflict. France, Italy, Egypt, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Russia all continue to engage in unhelpful ways.

It would be an oversimplification to say that these countries are divided into two camps with perfectly aligned goals and objectives. They have overlapping and competing interests, but each outside actor is attempting to advance its own narrow self-interest. What brings these countries into the conflict ranges from incompatible political and religious ideologies, to regional hegemonic ambitions, to access to Libya’s natural resources, to ancient European rivalries, to concerns about terrorist threats, to antidemocratic sentiment, and so on and so forth. It’s hard to see how these countries disengage without pressure from a nonaligned actor like the U.S., which has relationships to leverage with each of these nations.

Related Publications

Ask the Experts: What Does Libya Need for Elections to Succeed?

Ask the Experts: What Does Libya Need for Elections to Succeed?

Monday, March 20, 2023

By: Thomas M. Hill;  Tarek Megerisi

Abdoulaye Bathily, the U.N. secretary-general’s special representative for Libya, recently announced his new plan for elections in Libya, which he hopes will take place later this year. But the plan itself was light on implementation, and after similar plans collapsed in 2021, the U.N. will need to learn from past shortcomings to ensure there is not only a solid basis for elections, but a strong foundation for what comes after as well.

Type: Blog

Democracy & GovernancePeace Processes

The Latest @ USIP: Libya’s Institutional Legitimacy Crisis

The Latest @ USIP: Libya’s Institutional Legitimacy Crisis

Wednesday, March 1, 2023

By: Abdoulaye Bathily;  Andrew Cheatham;  Can Dizdar;  Ambassador Richard Norland

As Libya’s cease-fire continues to hold, the country can take the next step toward long-term stability by addressing its institutional legitimacy crisis. Without public trust in decision-making bodies, the country will struggle with crucial issues at the heart of the conflict, such as Libya’s vast oil wealth and how to distribute it. Democratically elected leadership is the best way forward — but elections remain elusive amid a political and military stalemate.

Type: Blog

Democracy & GovernancePeace Processes

Thomas Hill on the U.N. Mission in Libya

Thomas Hill on the U.N. Mission in Libya

Thursday, January 26, 2023

By: Thomas M. Hill

Twelve years since the fall of Qaddafi, the United Nations' Libya mission carries the same mandate as it did in 2011. With the country still experiencing various degrees of conflict and upheaval, it’s time to “re-envision what we want the U.N. to do” in Libya and create a “mandate [that] will reflect that,” says USIP’s Thomas Hill.

Type: Podcast

The U.N.’s Libya Mission Needs a Reset

The U.N.’s Libya Mission Needs a Reset

Monday, January 9, 2023

By: Thomas M. Hill;  Martin Pimentel

Nearly 12 years since the overthrow of Libya’s longtime dictator, Muammar Qaddafi, the country remains divided, providing opportunities for malign foreign interference. European and Middle Eastern governments have exploited the Libyan conflict to advance narrow self-interests — often at the expense of the Libyan people. Against this backdrop, the United Nations, via its support mission in Libya (UNSMIL), has worked to find a way to balance the interests of the Libyan people, political elites and powerful external actors to devise a political settlement and resolve the conflict.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Conflict Analysis & Prevention

View All Publications