Ahmad 
Since 2011, Libya has been facing a series of sanctions that constituted a political siege, without showing results related to stability. They constituted restrictions that prevented Libyans from creating a new future for their country.
The international sanctions imposed by the United Nations, the European Union, and the United States included freezing the state’s financial assets, in addition to banning the supply of weapons and imposing a ban on Libyan figures who were active during the era of former President Muammar Gaddafi.
Although more than a decade has passed since these sanctions, the Libyan crisis is deepening, while no measure has constituted the flow of weapons or even the establishment of a different basis on which the Libyans can conduct a dialogue. In the end, the sanctions increased the suffering of society, and had a negative impact even on the level of contradictions between the Libyan parties. Conflicting.
Background of sanctions
In 2011, the UN Security Council took a decision to impose sanctions on Libya under No. 1970, and they were mainly directed against the previous political regime, and before there was a military intervention that led to a state of chaos and the spread of various armed groups. However, these sanctions were expanded in 2014 due to continuing violence. And the illicit export of oil. The overall sanctions represented a European and American dynamic aimed at a number of matters that can be summarized in three basic points:
- The first is to control the political movement of the Libyan parties that were competing in an area that exceeds the limits of political action, through the increase of factions, which made it difficult to control the conflict even at the level of cities and regions. Maintaining the freeze of financial assets tempted all forces to search for communication that would enable them to obtain support. Financially to consolidate its influence and enable Western powers to buy the loyalty of a large number of political and even military forces.
The sanctions tried to create a reference for the Libyans, regardless of their differences on the ground. In the end, they were forced to follow a political mechanism specified by the countries that imposed the sanctions and not through their needs or the interests of Libyan society in particular.
- The second is an attempt to neutralize the regional and African parties in particular, as the sanctions tried to identify the actors, and they are the same parties that imposed the sanctions.
Regional intervention remained present even by countries beyond North Africa, such as Turkey for example, and was effective on the balance of power in Libya. Controlling the flow of weapons was “discretionary” in accordance with the interest of European countries primarily, and in return created crises at the regional level, such as the dispute. Turkish-Egyptian, and some countries have become mediators for violating the sanctions, according to European or American interests.
- The third matter is related to the “monopoly” of the political process. Sanctions limited the ability of countries affected by the crisis, such as Egypt, Tunisia, or others, to influence the facilitation of dialogue between Libyans. It also formed a “veto” on active countries within the international system, such as China and Russia, to enter the political process. directly.
The monopoly process created an international conflict over influence in Libya, even among European allies, which recently prompted the United States to intervene forcefully to control Western action, which brought sanctions back to the forefront, especially in terms of monitoring the Libyan coasts to prevent any non-European party from dealing with the Libyan parties.
Economic impact
The sanctions have significantly affected the Libyan economy and the daily lives of citizens. Freezing Libyan assets abroad has deprived the country of the funds needed for reconstruction and development, at a time when the oil sector in particular is suffering from damage to its structure that requires revenues and investments for its rehabilitation.
Despite the claim that the sanctions are to push the conflicting factions towards negotiation and finding a peaceful solution, they have put the Libyans under intense pressure, which raises questions about the effectiveness of the sanctions as a political tool and their long-term impact in achieving political and social stability.
What happened in practice is evident in the economic effects, starting with the difficulties experienced by the oil sector, as Libyan oil production was affected by major fluctuations due to conflicts and sanctions, and production decreased in some periods to significantly low levels. For example, in 2020, average production declined. Daily oil reached about 405,000 barrels per day, which is considered a third of production in 2019. The following graph shows the nature of the volatility that the oil sector suffers from:
Freezing assets affected financial liquidity and the country’s ability to invest in infrastructure and other projects, and prevented the use of these assets to achieve investment returns that could help in reconstruction and economic development.
In recent years, some legal successes have been announced leading to the unfreezing of some assets, such as those held in France, and there are ongoing legal disputes, such as those with Belgium, over frozen assets that continue to pose a major legal and financial challenge.
The other side of the impact of the sanctions is related to foreign investment and economic development. The sanctions have complicated investment operations and made them an issue linked to the projects the sanctions allow and the entry of equipment they allow. They have reduced Libya’s attractiveness as a destination for foreign investment, which has a negative impact on economic growth and development. The graph shows Next: The collapse of investment in Libya, a large part of which is borne by sanctions:
Although the sanctions have become a factor obstructing the development process in Libya and created political dynamics that made the West the monopoly of the political solution, international responses remained within the limits of the Russian and Chinese positions, as they abstained from voting on the sanctions resolutions, while the United States and the European Union renewed the sanctions several times and accused Russia violating sanctions laws.
At the time, Moscow denied, through the Russian Deputy Representative to the United Nations, Anna Yevstignyeva, any violations of its commitment to the international sanctions regime imposed on Libya, stressing that Russian-Libyan relations are in line with international frameworks and do not conflict with Security Council resolutions. It also considered that the American accusations regarding the negative impact of Russia The situation in Libya is incorrect, and it indicated that the United States and some European countries have a negative impact on the country and the region, especially after the events of 2011.
The sanctions failed to pressure the Libyan parties to sit at the negotiating table and reach a political solution, and this matter was expected from the beginning because they did not leave the will of the Libyans with any options other than to negotiate with Western countries, and made the political dynamic a matter of foreign wills, and it also enabled international powers to Monopolizing the legitimacy of the solution and granting it to some parties depending on the loyalties they express and the extent of their commitment to Western policies. Sanctions appeared from the beginning as a tool to implement European and American strategies and not measures to reduce the Libyan political division.
Written by Nidal Al-Khedary
Symbolic gesture by the Algerian delegation at the Paris Olympics catches the eye