Skip to content

Libya’s two-track dilemma: follow the UN or DC?

The United States and the United Nations now find themselves pursuing their own initiatives in Libya. Will there processes coexist or compete?

Libya’s two-track dilemma: follow the UN or DC?
Published:

Libya’s political process finds itself between a rock and a hard place, again.

In late August, the UN’s new envoy for Libya, Hanna Tetteh, sketched a political roadmap built around a unified government and credible presidential and parliamentary elections—a message that resonated with a public weary of parallel institutions and militia rule.

Her team framed an estimated 18-month timeline to end the transition and unify state bodies in line with the Security Council’s mandate renewal.

Then Rome happened. In early September, Massad Boulos, the U.S. president’s senior adviser for Africa, brought Saddam Haftar and Ibrahim Dabaiba face-to-face in Rome.

That meeting, and a follow-up gathering of international senior officials chaired by the U.S. on the sidelines of UNGA (24 Sept), has effectively opened a parallel policy lane—what diplomats now shorthand as the “Boulos track.”

What UNSMIL is proposing (and why it matters)

The United Nations Support Mission in Libya’s (UNSMIL) baseline premise is simple: without a single executive, coherent security policy and a legitimate mandate, Libya cannot build stable future institutions.

Tetteh understands that Libya needs a systematic reset instead of just applying short-term solutions to current problems. Without a new legitimate government, any stopgap measures implemented risk falling to the same forces that have prevented real reform in the past.

From our partners