Tuesday, December 3, 2019

Libya: Washington calling Haftar

The Washington Post reports that the US via the State Department is asking the LNA (Libyan National Army) to stop their attack on Tripoli:

“The message to General Hifter was very clear, that we feel a military incursion into Tripoli would be disastrous right now, or ever,” said a senior administration official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to characterize the closed-door discussions.

. . . Germany is leading an effort to hold a political summit on Libya to breathe new life into a U.N. process.

. . . The official said the United States had asked Libyans to find ways to reduce the violence and had stressed to Hifter the “very negative potential” outcomes from Russian involvement.

. .  . Asked about reports of divisions between the State Department, which has voiced consistent support for the GNA, and the White House, which is seen as more open to Hifter, the official said: “I don’t see a Hifter solution; I don’t see a GNA solution; I see a Libyan solution.”

(Note: I've been using the spelling of Haftar while the Washington Post is using the spelling Hifter.)

What first came to my mind was why is the US suddenly interested again in what is happening in Libya? The last I heard about any Washington interaction with Haftar was back in April when I quoted the following in an older blog post:



The Arab Weekly wrote back in April:

In a White House readout of the April 15 call, which was not reported until April 19, Trump “recognised Field-Marshal Haftar’s significant role in fighting terrorism and securing Libya’s oil resources.” 

As can be seen in that call, President Trump seemed to back Haftar. This call happened after Haftar's forces took over the oil fields in southern Libya and also after he started to march on Tripoli around April 4th. Now this quote doesn't imply that Trump directly supported Haftar's move on Tripoli and there was a UN Security Council statement asking for the halt of the military advance. Yet, there has been fighting around Tripoli since April so why this renewed interest on the part of the US?

In terms of the actual fighting, The Libya Observer has a brief article up on the fighting in Tripoli. To me, it sounds like a the fighting is still in a standstill. So I'm not exactly sure that the current fighting between the LNA and Tripoli (GNA) would drive the US to get re-engaged.

I have to think that the quote about Russia is the driving force for why the US met with Haftar. Back in October, I wrote about Russia's growing involvement in assisting Haftar in the battle for Tripoli. There has to be concern about growing Russian influence with Haftar and what Russia's role in Libya might be should he gain full control of the country. 

Oil also has to play a role in this. We know that President Trump has troops controlling Syria's oil fields, which at this point could be easily protected from ISIS (or whatever other reason we're protecting the oil fields) by the Russians. Syria oil production is very minimal, but prior to their civil war the country was producing around 380,000 b/pd. Libya meanwhile, in the midst of a civil war, is producing 1.2M b/pd. If President Trump is protecting Syrian oil fields that even at full production is of minimal importance to world use, what must he be thinking about Russian potential involvement with Libya's oil production. 

I have two other takeaways from the meeting via my quotes from the article.

First, is that the US thinks that Haftar taking over Tripoli would be a disaster. My initial thoughts back in March was that Haftar was saying he would march on Tripoli in order to gain some concessions:

My theory: these suggestions that the LNA might march on Tripoli is simply an attempt to negotiate a percentage of the oil revenues. Various nations that back the LNA are telling Haftar not to march on Tripoli. Various cities around Tripoli are not eager to support Haftar. They are having some issues in southern Libya due to the Tebu tribe. It sounds like they need to take some time to regroup or risk getting over-stretched. To me, a better strategy by the LNA would be to get some additional oil revenues that they can spread around to their supporters.

That thought process was obviously wrong as we've had fighting around Tripoli for 8 months or so. Though I still side with Washington DC that taking control of Tripoli would be a disaster.

Second, my Washington Post quote mentions that Germany is trying to work out a deal between the LNA and GNA. Prior to this we know that Italy and France were trying to work out a deal. It appears that the baton has been passed to Germany.


No comments:

Post a Comment