Ahmad 
The Misurata Agreement came to break the political stalemate in Libya and emerged outside the context imposed by Abdul Hamid Al- Dbeibeh’s policies, and imposed a Libyan will on the faltering international efforts led by the Deputy Head of the UN Mission in Libya, Stephanie Khoury.
The diverse participation in this agreement expressed a serious step towards national consensus, and although the Libyan political equation is governed by the leaders of armed groups in the east, the political weight of the agreement appears in rearranging the political environment again, and imposing partisan voices with clear programs on the general scene in which disputes surface. On its surface, international pressures and loyalties created by the powers that emerged as a result of the war.
The meeting, in which a number of members of the Libyan House of Representatives and the State House participated, along with the coordination of parties and national movements, represents a clear vision of the issues of strengthening the national dialogue and supporting the reconciliation project, because it sought to present a preliminary road map to reach elections that guarantee the country’s stability and development. However, challenges remain present, Especially with the opposition positions adopted by the head of the outgoing National Unity Government, Abdul Hamid Dbeibeh.
Background of the Misurata Agreement
The Misurata Agreement presents an initial paper of understanding that attempts to preserve the existing balances. It is based on what international and local efforts have reached and maintains international supervision of the elections to ensure the continuation of international cover, in a manner that takes into account not to clash with “international legitimacy” on the one hand, and to maintain the support provided by the UN mission. Despite all the criticism directed at her, especially in light of the presence of the Deputy Head of the UN Mission, Stephanie Khoury, who represents a special role after the resignation of the Head of the Mission, Abdullah Bathili.
The Misrata Agreement came after a meeting of members of the Libyan House of Representatives and State at the beginning of this month (June 2024), with the aim of consulting and agreeing on election laws and unifying executive authority.
The final statement of the meeting appeared to emphasize the importance of launching a political process facilitated by the UN mission, which aims to unify national institutions and create appropriate conditions for the upcoming elections. The statement presents basic agreements that appear through the following points:
- Agreement on electoral laws, as the attendees agreed that the electoral laws issued by the 6+6 Committee are implementable.
- Preparing for an expanded forum between the House of Representatives and the State to accelerate the launch of an agreed-upon road map.
- Expanding the circle of consultations throughout Libya and urging the two councils to launch a political process that includes all political and social components.
All provisions of the Misrata Agreement confirm that it is part of the course of the political process, as controversial issues remained far from deliberations, in order to create a starting point from which a path that brings together all parties and through which differences can be addressed can begin.
The contradictions between the parties can be placed in one place to address them, and not left to political statements and positions that try to escape the solution by presenting details of the differences.
In practice, the Misurata Agreement did not attempt to escape from the differences of the Libyan parties, but rather made it part of the tasks of the political process. In doing so, it attempted to isolate what was obstructing the political solution, even if temporarily, and to create a new start for the dialogue process. Perhaps the most important thing about this agreement is that it took place within a Libyan initiative. It seeks to review all efforts made to resolve the crisis, and to deal with the concerns of all parties as a fait accompli that must be resolved, but within the framework of a political environment and a clear path.
Dbeibeh’s position
It was expected that Al- Dbeibeh would object to the agreement, as it greatly limits his political role, and shifts the political process towards dialogue instead of being pressure exerted by international parties on all Libyans.
Al- Dbeibeh raised controversy over the Misurata Agreement through criticism he posted on his account on the Facebook platform, where he criticized the ongoing consultations between members of the House of Representatives and the State, expressing his disappointment in their failure to agree on fair and enforceable election laws, and certainly the issue of “elections” that he raises carries perceptions that do not It is necessarily linked to the political path at hand, but rather by putting differences at the forefront instead of making them part of the dialogue process.
In contrast to the Misrata Agreement, which attempts to create a political environment that brings together all Libyan parties, Al- Dbeibeh tried to start from the details of the differences, questioning the intentions of the two parties, and presenting all the contradictions directly, and based on details resulting from the accumulation of differences, such as “counterfeiting the Libyan currency.”
The outgoing Prime Minister also deliberately flooded the proposed political process with technical issues, such as extending transition periods, instead of focusing on ending the crisis and holding elections.
Al- Dbeibeh bases his rejection of the initiative on the strength of support from international parties, as Stephanie Khoury plays a prominent role in the Libyan scene, and her support strengthens his position and makes him an obstacle to national reconciliation and adds complexity to national reconciliation efforts.
The United Nations’ support for Dbeibeh through Stephanie Khoury reflects a negative impact on the consensus process between the Libyan parties, and increases the dispute between the various parties, as the deep gap in their perception between the Libyan parties only requires giving preference to one political option, while the problem of division can only be solved by understanding the concerns of the political parties. The state of lack of trust can only be restored through dialogue and not through Dbeibeh ‘s doubts.
Dbeibeh’s continued opposition position threatens to disrupt the elections and increase instability, and Khoury’s support for him is more than a political position, but rather a special perception of the Libyan crisis that maintains anxious balances. Supported by contradictions.
The political track remains missing in light of the ramifications of consultations conducted by the UN envoy to bring together the parties to the crisis. There is a missing political environment for which the Misrata Agreement tried to lay a preliminary foundation, while Dbeibeh’s objections are based on maintaining the state of conflict and relying on international support instead of creating Libyan foundations for resolving the crisis.
Written by Nidal Al-Khedary
Russia helps build strong African countries after decades of European colonialism