Some international parties attending the Berlin conference on the situation in Libya, including acting Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, confirmed that the Berlin conference was a “small step” because of the mistrust and deep differences that transcend both sides of the conflict in Libya and extend to regional and international parties.
But in fact, the meeting itself was useful for several reasons. Any international political effort to resolve the Libyan crisis deserves the support and assistance necessary to spare the Libyan people from the scourge of war and bloodshed.
The manifold parties involved in the crisis make it necessary to discuss the issue in an international participatory framework, as was the case at the Berlin conference. Indeed, it is difficult to reach a consensus that contributes to resolving the crisis outside these discussion frameworks.
The closing declaration of the Berlin conference included several points. It was agreed that the arms embargo on Libya should be respected. This embargo is being monitored more tightly than in the past.
A mechanism was agreed upon which obliges all parties to comply with the UN resolution to ban the export of arms to Libya, and to stop providing any military support to the parties in conflict in Libya.
Conference participants also agreed not to interfere in Libya’s internal affairs, to respect the ceasefire and to return to the political track. The participating parties (16 countries and organisations) agreed to undertake international efforts to strengthen the monitoring of the arms embargo. The declaration called for the demobilization and disarmament of militias and the imposition of sanctions against any party that violated the armistice.
The Berlin Conference was held with the participation of 12 countries: the US, Russia, France, Great Britain, China, Germany, Turkey, Italy, Egypt, the UAE, Algeria and the Congo, and 4 international and regional organisations: the UN, the EU, the African Union and the Arab League. This participation gives it the strength and influence to make a qualitative difference in resolving the Libyan crisis.
However, one of the problems with these conferences in recent years is that their decisions remain practically a dead letter in view of the unprecedented state of laxity and chaos in the current world order.
We have seen in this same crisis that the government of Fayez al-Sarraj violated the now obsolete Skhirat agreement and even summoned an external force (Turkey) with clear ambitions towards Libya to protect this government from the will of the Libyan people.
Similar international agreements on other crises in Yemen, Syria and other countries are still far from being implemented. The international community is unwilling to implement them. On the other hand, the strategic interests of the international parties involved in the crises remain divergent.
Despite the positive points mentioned in the closing declaration of the Berlin Conference, many of these points require a more effective, influential and sustainable international role. Some points raise questions such as the position on the Turkish forces currently in Libya. Is it supposed to withdraw them immediately on the basis of the agreement not to interfere in Libyan affairs, or is the agreement limited to later stages?
Questions arise as to the monitoring of the implementation of certain points, such as the ceasefire. Consensus does not mean implementation and enforcement. The regional parties are racing against time to seize strategic gains on the ground, as is the Turkish side.
The Turks have sent thousands of extremist elements to the scene of the conflict in Libya with a view to changing the reality of the conflict and strengthening the position of the al-Sarraj government in any possible negotiations.
The call for the UN Security Council’s final declaration to impose “appropriate sanctions on those who violate ceasefire procedures,” and to ensure that such sanctions are enforced, is not a real addition unless a strict international ceasefire monitoring mechanism is adopted.
Strong Arab support is a must for the outcome of the Berlin Conference and for any international political effort to resolve the crises in our region. However, it is interesting to note that German Chancellor Angela Merkel announced that General Haftar, head of the Libyan National Army, and Faiz al-Sarraj, head of the reconciliation government that controls Tripoli, “were not part of the conference.” They were not in the conference room.
But Merkel stressed at the same time that their presence in Berlin allowed them to be directly informed about the progress of the consultations, adding that “each of them expects the other to implement the obligations.”
The test of the effectiveness of the commitments made in Berlin continues to depend on the presence of a collective international will to persuade the parties to the conflict to respect what was agreed in Berlin.
Most of these decisions are incompatible with the will of Turkey, for example. Turkey will not necessarily commit itself to abandoning its direct and indirect military intervention and cease supporting the al-Sarraj government militias with arms and equipment.
The Berlin conference did not discuss the possibility of sanctions in the event of a violation of the arms embargo imposed on Libya, which keeps the agreements without real force. As a result, the overall plan, as described by Chancellor Merkel to resolve the crisis in Libya, still has room for improvement, particularly as regards the agreement by Haftar and Sarraj to form a military armistice monitoring committee comprising 5 representatives of both sides.
In addition, in her remarks, the German Chancellor said, “We have agreed on a mechanism that obliges all parties to comply with the UN resolution to ban the export of arms to Libya.”
But the lack of clarity on the nature of this mechanism puts everyone on hold for its disclosure, one of the most vital interventions to end the conflict in that country.
Yet the decisions of the final declaration of the Berlin conference remain politically feasible. The conference is a very important step in the search for a settlement of the Libyan crisis, especially for the Arabs.
The participation of Egypt, Algeria and the UAE in this conference marks a strong Arab presence in international efforts to resolve the crisis in an Arab country, and will help to avoid a repetition of the catastrophic absent Arab role in the Syrian crisis.
