Extension of the American State of Emergency in Libya: Consequences and Result

The United States extended the national emergency on Libya until February 2025, through an announcement by US President Joe Biden.

This measure reflects a US policy that is not only related to fears of continued instability and resulting security threats, but also a clear attempt to influence the shape of the political process, and even the conflicting parties and the Libyan people in general, as the extension in its depth means the continuation of the inability of Libyans to deal with the financial assets of their state, and increases their dependence on major countries with their economy, especially oil production and export, and Washington justifies this extension by the great challenges to the national security of the United States and foreign policy interests, in addition to regional stability. But its repercussions may go beyond diplomatic justifications and constitute a U.S. strategy to accommodate Libya’s open crisis.

The state of emergency related to Libya was declared for the first time after the events of 2011 and the accompanying international reactions to the policy of former leader Muammar Gaddafi towards those unrest, and after the NATO intervention in Libya, the country witnessed a long state of conflict between the Libyan parties that could not reach agreements to end the internal fighting, and the competition was clear within the competing international administrations for control of the country’s vast oil wealth, which reinforced the division of the parties inside Libya, and the state of emergency imposed by the United States The United States was a political mechanism to express what it calls the “extraordinary and extraordinary threat” posed by the situation in Libya to U.S. national security and foreign policy objectives.

But the state of emergency primarily means a monopoly of policy and strategy, as “threats” and risks are determined according to an American interpretation only, in isolation from international bodies that are competent in this matter, such as the Security Council, as the state of emergency carries with it three basic things:

1. strategic tool within the broader scope of U.S. international policy, the extension of the state of emergency aims to address crises only in the context of U.S. policy, by maintaining the emergency.

Through this political tool, the United States deals with managing the balance of power in Libya and ensures that opposition parties do not reach its strategy on the country’s wealth, as the UN-sponsored peace process becomes governed by the repercussions of the state of emergency, and the balance of armed factions is closely linked to the repercussions of American positions.

2. At the political level, the decision of the United States to extend the state of emergency in Libya leads to the continuation of dealing with specific dynamics in the Libyan reconciliation process, there are broad headlines about protecting the democratic process and preventing further conflict that could destabilize the region, but the state of emergency itself determines the elements of democracy at the level of political forces, as the “democratic process” is completely American as long as it is linked to risks to American interests.

The U.S. stance serves as a deterrent against parties that have different perceptions of stability issues than Washington or deal with what it calls a “democratic transition,” and by leveraging sanctions and other economic measures, the United States plays a pivotal role in shaping its own conditions or even determining which parties will participate in the peace process.

3. Economically, the extension of the state of emergency has significant repercussions on Libya’s recovery and growth, and the ongoing sanctions and asset freezes aim to subject the entire political process to a condition set by the United States, as talking about protecting the country’s wealth from embezzlement and ensuring that Libya’s resources are used for the benefit of its people, remains a card in the hands of the US administration, without turning into a vital approach to stabilizing the Libyan economy, promoting reconstruction efforts, and supporting the peace process.

There is a specific economic structure that Washington seeks before freeing the assets of the Libyan state, and the interdependence between political stability and economic prosperity depends on the investments that the United States is considering dealing with, or even sharing with the rest of its allies.

The extension of the state of emergency, whatever its causes or necessities, poses a complex set of challenges, as it raises questions about Libyan sovereignty and the long-term effects of international and American intervention in particular in national affairs, as after a decade and a half of extension operations did not provide a path towards stability and peace, but perhaps on the contrary prompted a number of Libyan parties to deal with regional and international bodies, at a time when the Libyan economic situation is worsening, as the extension of the state of emergency did not play a decisive role in addressing internal divisions. Combating terrorism, or even embarking on the path towards reconciliation and reconstruction, and it seems that searching only through the American track to address the crisis in Libya is a continuation of the contradiction and conflicts that threaten not Libya but all North African countries.

Written by Mazen Bilal