Libya cannot be reduced to a mere migration dossier: a broad and courageous vision is needed, capable of addressing the deep roots of the crisis that has been affecting the North African country for over a decade. This is the vision of Stephanie Turco Williams, former special representative of the Secretary General of the United Nations in Libya, a US citizen with a central role in diplomatic attempts at peace and now author of the book “Libya Since Qaddafi: Chaos and the Search for Peace”.
The work, which offers a detailed reconstruction of the post-2011 Libyan events, has a charitable purpose: all proceeds will be donated to charity. In an exclusive interview with “Agenzia Nova”, Williams illustrates the content and motivations behind her volume, conceived as a detailed and in-depth account of the political, military and diplomatic events in Libya from 2012 to the latest developments. “I decided to write this book,” explains Williams, “because I felt that there was a lack of a detailed and impartial reconstruction of the post-Gaddafi Libyan events, seen from the inside and in all their complexity. It is a story that does not spare criticism of any of the actors involved.”
The US diplomat criticizes Italy for having focused too much on the migration issue. “Italy certainly has its own lens through which it looks at Libya,” says Williams, explaining that Rome’s policy on the North African country has historically been influenced by the migration issue. “We may disagree on how to handle this issue with the Libyans, but I think it certainly influences the policies adopted.
The French, on the other hand, tend to look at Libya through the lens of anti-terrorism,” she adds, highlighting how each European country observes the Libyan situation through its own specific interests. Williams, however, reiterates the need for greater overall European political and strategic commitment, positively noting the recent relaunch of the Berlin Process, a diplomatic initiative launched by Germany and supported by the United Nations in 2020 to promote a political solution to the Libyan crisis.
The Berlin Process involves the main international actors interested in the Libyan dossier – including the United States, Russia, Turkey, Egypt, France, Italy, the United Arab Emirates, and the African Union – and has served to obtain common commitments on the ceasefire, respect for the arms embargo, and support for an inclusive electoral process under the auspices of the UN.
A next meeting is scheduled in Germany on June 20. “From what I can see, there is now more emphasis on collaboration than rivalry between the two countries in the Libyan dossier,” Williams comments. This renewed European and international engagement, according to Williams, is “crucial” to overcome the current crisis of legitimacy in Libya, where “there is not a single Libyan institution that enjoys real popular legitimacy. They all lack it. This is a problem that needs to be addressed.”
According to Williams, one of the main critical issues encountered in the recent past concerns the marginalization of the Libyan dossier in international agendas, especially in 2019. “The problem was that, in almost all capitals, Libya ceased to be a political priority. Decisions on the Libyan dossier were often subordinated to bilateral political considerations with key players in the region, such as the United Arab Emirates or Egypt,” says the former UN envoy.
“Libya became a secondary element within broader strategic relationships.” For Williams, it is now crucial that Libya returns to being a political priority in the main international capitals: “Today there is a real opportunity to put Libya back at the center of the agenda. A serious, coordinated and lasting commitment is needed.”
The former special representative underlines the strategic role of Russia and Turkey, which now operate “in a sort of condominium” on Libyan territory, a situation that despite having guaranteed relative calm, remains precarious and dangerous. “The Libyans themselves invite foreign powers into their country,”
he states, “but in doing so they put their own sovereignty at risk.” A situation that now more than ever requires European leadership capable of proposing authentically inclusive solutions, which look not only to immediate interests but to a lasting and sustainable pacification of Libya.
In the interview with “Agenzia Nova”, Williams also comments on the recent military parade organized in Benghazi by the forces of General Khalifa Haftar, during which numerous heavy weapons and new means of war were exhibited, and the growing militarization of Fezzan, a southern region under the control of Haftar.
“Obviously, from what we saw in the parade, weapons continue to arrive, equipment continues to arrive,” explains the former UN special representative in Libya. A situation that highlights the ongoing violation of the arms embargo imposed by the United Nations, the observance of which, Williams states bitterly, “is a joke”. In his opinion, the presence of “tens of thousands” of mercenaries on Libyan soil and the continuous influx of weapons from abroad demonstrate the total lack of respect for Libyan sovereignty.
One of the most controversial and delicate passages of the Libyan crisis, analyzed in the book and in the exclusive interview given to “Agenzia Nova”, is the ambiguous role played by the United States during the military offensive launched by General Khalifa Haftar in April 2019 against Tripoli. Williams recalls that moment with bitterness: “During the first Trump administration there was a profound disconnect and lack of communication between the White House, the Pentagon and the State Department.
This led, among other things, to the famous green light for Haftar’s attack on Tripoli, while the State Department and the Defense Department were completely unaware. They were not even aware that Trump had called Haftar. There was a four-day delay between that phone call and the release of an official statement, something that never happens in Washington. This general disorganization and confusion between the agencies, combined with Trump’s penchant for a transactional approach to foreign policy, raises legitimate concerns about the direction that American policy in Libya could take”.
Williams does not limit herself to that 2019 episode. The book also clearly shows a second “green light” given by the US in the “secret” oil agreement signed in July 2022 in Abu Dhabi between the Haftar and Dabaiba families, an agreement that caused an internal political and institutional earthquake: “The replacement of Mustafa Sanalla at the helm of the National Oil Corporation (NOC), decided in Abu Dhabi between Haftar and Dabaiba, had a devastating effect on the autonomy and integrity of the NOC, which for years had been protected and considered sacrosanct by the international community.
Once again, as in April 2019, the agreement had the tacit green light from the White House, creating an extremely worrying scenario for the transparency and economic stability of the country”. It is precisely this episode, Williams adds, that pushed her to leave her role at the United Nations in July 2022.
Williams’ analysis is also critical of Libyan leaders themselves. The case of Prime Minister Abdulhamid Dabaiba is emblematic: “During the Libyan Political Dialogue Forum (LDPF) that we organized under the auspices of the UN, Dabaiba made a public and solemn commitment not to run for president. He even signed an official declaration to that effect. A few months later, however, he blatantly violated that promise. This choice was perceived by many Libyans as a political betrayal that weakened the peace process and compromised the path to elections.”
The failed elections of December 24, 2021 represent one of the most critical and painful moments in Libya’s recent history. “We had set clear deadlines in the Lpdf, especially on the constitutional framework. When it became clear that a constitutional agreement would not be reached by February 2021, the international community should have intervened immediately.
Not doing so was a huge strategic mistake,” says Williams. “I believe it is extremely difficult to go to the polls without a clear constitutional framework that addresses, among other things, the thorny issue of the eligibility criteria for presidential candidates, a still unresolved issue. We know very well that this problem revolves around a single figure in Libya (General Haftar, ed.) and touches on sensitive issues such as dual citizenship and the possibility for military officers in service to run for office.
This is a negotiation that must be managed entirely by the Libyans. I discuss this in depth in my book: bypassing this discussion, as was then done, and allowing Parliament to approve electoral laws in an opaque and non-consensual manner, has opened the way to a plethora of presidential candidacies, with the result of fueling further divisions and tensions”, says the former UN special representative.
Another serious mistake, according to Williams, “was the betrayal of the prerogatives established by the Forum for the new government. It was supposed to be a streamlined executive, with the aim of decentralizing and guaranteeing funds to municipalities to facilitate the organization of the electoral process. It was not supposed to turn into a bloated monster of power-sharing, a classic muhasasa system. And instead that is exactly what happened”. A drift, according to Williams, that compromised not only the credibility of the transition, but also the minimum conditions to arrive at a truly inclusive and transparent vote.
The former UN envoy also clarifies the details of the scandal related to the alleged bribes during the Lpdf meetings: “In Tunis, we received vague accusations of corruption aimed at influencing the vote on the new Libyan leaders. However, we had no investigative mandate. We immediately contacted the Libyan Prosecutor and the UN Panel of Experts, asking them to investigate. They told us that there was no concrete evidence. Weeks later, leaks came out that smeared the entire process. If there was indeed evidence, it should have been made public immediately out of respect for transparency”.
In its third section, Williams’ book addresses the crucial issues that continue to block Libyan reconciliation: the absence of a concrete policy of disarmament, demobilization and reintegration of militias, the pervasiveness of rentier economic structures that fuel local conflicts, and above all the widespread impunity for human rights violations, which remains a major cause of the perpetuation of violence.
Another central issue addressed in the interview was that of disinformation, a phenomenon that the former mediator defines as “devastating” for Libyan society, deeply divided even online, with veritable foreign electronic armies, including Russians and Turks, engaged in creating opposing and polarizing narratives. Williams recalls the murder of parliamentarian Saham Sergeiwa, who disappeared in Benghazi after a smear campaign on social media: “The conflict in Libya has been fought online as much as on the ground.”
Williams emphasizes that Libya is “a Facebook nation,” where “there are more Facebook accounts than citizens.” This is the main channel of communication and, at the same time, propaganda. “Stanford University published a very in-depth report at the end of 2020, which I recommend everyone read,” says the former UN representative.
“It analyzes not only the situation in Libya, but also in Syria and Sudan, and directly links disinformation to Prigozhin’s networks, but also to sources in the Gulf countries, Egypt and elsewhere in the region.” This study, Williams continues, prompted Meta to remove numerous fake pages and profiles.
During the interview, Williams expressed a clear condemnation of the hypotheses, circulating in recent days in the international press, about a possible agreement for the temporary transfer of part of the population of Gaza to Libya. “I cannot imagine the Libyan people accepting such an agreement. Any Libyan who even took part in that type of discussion would, in my opinion, be automatically disqualified from any position of responsibility in the country”.
For Williams, it would be a “cynical and purely transactional” initiative. An equally severe judgment is reserved for the idea of using Libya as a platform for the rejection of migrants. “Libya is not a safe country for any migrant”, Williams reiterated. “We have also addressed this issue here in Rome, with the Italian government. The United Nations has always opposed the repatriation of migrants to Libya and to those detention centers that are, quite simply, hells on earth”.
In closing, the former UN Special Representative launches an appeal to Libyan leaders. Williams says she is “very encouraged” by the current work of the UN mission in Libya (UNSMIL), now led by the new Special Representative of the Secretary General, Hanna Tetteh, and recognizes “the importance of the results” obtained by the new Libyan Advisory Committee to overcome the political stalemate. In her opinion, the United Nations “remains the most impartial mediator in Libya, and the one most widely accepted by the majority of the population”.
For this reason, she emphasizes, it would be “very wise for Libyan actors to support this new UN mediation process”. But the final reflection goes beyond politics. “Libyan leaders must stop thinking about themselves, and start thinking about their children and grandchildren. What kind of Libya will they leave to future generations? What will their legacy be? It is their country, and they are ultimately responsible for its fate”.
__________________________
