Al-Sanousi Al-Bsikri, a Libyan writer
Credit: This article was first published by Arabi21 on October 17, 2020
The current negotiating paths’ issue remains ambiguous, not only to the street man, but even for some elite that following up the ongoing dialogues and those scheduled to take place soon. What makes the negotiation issue ambiguous is the multiplicity of meetings and contradictory statements about the outcome of the negotiation.
What is new since last Saturday and during this week in which we covered the statement of the meeting in Bouznika, Morocco, and what was reached regarding the criteria for nomination and choosing who will vacate the sovereign positions, is the announcement by the assembled members of the Tobruk House of Representatives (HoR) and the High Council of State in Egypt of their agreement on the necessity to end the transitional phases.
The announcement contains some ambiguity regarding the negotiation paths, as the agreement to end the transitional phases means resorting to general elections on a constitutional basis, which was not agreed upon in the aforementioned meeting, but a sharp dispute occurred about it as the HoR delegation rejected the referendum on the draft constitution prepared by the elected body for the referendum, as well as the High Council’s proposal of referendum on the constitution and to hold elections to make the amending of draft constitution is the first work of the new HoR.
On the other hand, the current dialogues especially the Geneva dialogue and the dialogue meeting that will be held in Tunisia next November, is established to a new transitional phase based on a constitutional amendment and the formation of a mini-Presidency Council along with a separated government. Which collides to say that it is agreed to end the transitional phase!
Ambiguity is a wrong and weak choice under the pretext of preventing interference in the path of negotiation, and it is not in line with the fact that those concerned with negotiation and agreements and its agendas are all Libyans, as they are the first beneficiary if the negotiation was constructive and productive or vice versa, so how can it be in line under pretext of fearing interference in the path of negotiation.
Ambiguity also constitutes a barrier to the interaction of many elites and activists, a positive interaction that achieves the standard of participation, which has become one of the most important guarantees for the success of political agreements, and because ambiguity results in negative expectations and speculation, the attitude of many of those involved in the current negotiation has become conservative and even opposed, and this is a biggest failure that could lead to a repeat of the Skhirat dialogue and its results.
This leads me asking about the positive dealing with the statements and demands issued by political, social, societal and military groups regarding the current dialogues. And what is clearly apparent is the promises of the UN mission to expand the base of participation in the political dialogue, noting that the mission will determine who will participate with the HoR and the High Council of State’s participation. Which is an obvious defect, it is supposed that the reservations and demands of the parties concerned with the negotiation, especially the High Council of State, to become independents adopting the minimum agenda.
From this point, the point of participation and expanding its base, I call for the convergence of views and attitudes between the actors within the Government of National Accord from all political, social, societal and military components, on the minimum agenda, which includes ending the militarization project and blocking the path to the coup plot and ensuring the stability in the country and all Libyans.
The failure of the components representing the Government of National Accord’s front or those concerned with the civil state and the refusal of militarism to agree on the minimum agenda, means that the agreement between the West front and East front is impossible, and if an agreement is signed, it will definitely be at the expense of legitimate goals and objectives.
I am certain that the state of ambiguity, conflict and collision in attitudes, whether within each front or between the two main fronts concerned with negotiation, will pave the way for an external agenda that I expect that will not be positive and will not serve unity, political and economic stability, so do those concerned pay attention to these risks before the disaster strikes?
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect those of The Libya Observer