The political scene in the Libyan capital opened up to an atmosphere that seemed unusual to some, following the arrival of Mustafa Majdoub, who was chosen by a group of politicians as head of a “unified government,” to Tripoli to begin his work duties, announcing the dissolution of the Houses of Representatives and the Supreme Council of State, and calling for a referendum on the constitution.
Last July, a number of politicians and activists announced during a meeting held in Geneva, within what they called the “Political Dialogue Forum,” the selection of Al-Majdoub as president of what they described as a “unified government,” which was received by Libyans with a great deal of disinterest, in light of the presence of two governments in Tripoli and Benghazi. The first is internationally recognized, and the second is supported by Parliament.
In a televised speech addressed to the Libyan people on Friday, Al-Majdoub declared “a state of general military mobilization to protect the borders, the homeland, and citizens,” and froze the work of the two chambers. He also launched a referendum on the constitution within 90 days, calling on the High Commission for Parliamentary and Presidential Elections to conduct the election within 8 months of the end of the referendum.
Blood injections
Al-Majdoub, who arrived in Tripoli on Friday morning via Mitiga International Airport “to begin his work duties,” said: “Our goal is clear; A constitution, then elections, then elected institutions that end the transitional stages,” sending a direct invitation to the President of the Presidential Council, Mohamed Al-Menfi, and the current heads of government in Tripoli and Benghazi. Abdel Hamid Al-Dabaiba and Osama Hammad called for “the speedy handover of power to spare the blood of Libyans, in accordance with the peaceful transfer of power.”
He said, “Some countries bet on the power of weapons and centers of influence. As for me, I bet on the great, strong Libyan people,” and he ended by threatening: “We will fight corruption by law and protect public money, and we will hold everyone whose responsibility is proven before the judiciary.”
The Libyan media was filled with a state of “sarcasm” in the wake of Al-Majdoub’s speech, and many republished the latter’s speech and commented on it, marveling at what they called “a maneuver that creates confusion” in the divided country, while some opponents of the House of Representatives and the “State” were quick to deal with some seriousness with Al-Majdoub’s speech, and considered it “a rescue gesture that must be supported.”
A Libyan politician who spoke to Asharq Al-Awsat believes that Al-Majdoub “is a card used by Dabaiba’s opponents, to further dispute with him and shuffle the cards, but it remains useless because it is not recognized internationally.”
The so-called “Sons of Tripoli” welcomed Al-Majdoub’s speech, who announced from the heart of Tripoli “the beginning of a new phase aimed at ending division, corruption and conflict, and building a strong state whose future the Libyans decide for themselves.” They considered this “a historic moment and a new era based on sincere national will, far from corruption deals and sharing the nation’s capabilities.”
The announcement came through what was called the “Political Dialogue Forum” away from international tracks, before pictures and video clips of the meeting spread inside Libya at the time, so the initiative quickly turned into a focus of discussion and even ridicule at times, amid questions about its legitimacy and the possibility of it becoming a political reality. The UN mission to Libya previously denied, in a statement to Asharq Al-Awsat, that it had any relationship with what took place in the Geneva meeting, which resulted in the selection of Al-Majdoub as head of a third government.
A page on the social networking site for Al-Majdoub’s supporters invited Libyans, on Friday, to participate in a protest gathering in “Martyrs’ Square” in the capital, Tripoli, to demand an end to the work of existing political bodies, the fall of the “National Unity Government”, the departure of the House of Representatives and the Supreme Council of State, the rejection of political and institutional division, and the emphasis on the unity of Libya.
The “unity” government and the Presidential Council ignored Al-Majdoub’s speech, while Al-Manfi’s office said that he went to Cairo in response to an official invitation to participate in a number of high-level African events and events.
It seemed that Al-Majdoub's step did not come out of nowhere. Nasser Ammar, the commander of the “Support Force for Operation Volcano of Rage,” was quick to publish and promote what he described as “the decisions of the Supreme Commander of the Libyan Army,” Mustafa Al-Majdoub. The decisions included calling on the competent military and security authorities to take the necessary measures to protect citizens, and to ensure the security and safety of diplomatic and consular missions and international organizations and bodies, with an emphasis on the commitment of all military and security authorities to the provisions of the law, and to exercise the highest levels of discipline, self-restraint, and the protection of civilians.
Question marks
Al-Majdoub’s speech left many question marks in Libyan circles between those who disparaged his speech and those who took it seriously, especially in the west of the country, and considered it “an opportunity for change and salvation from the political bodies that have been in charge of the country’s affairs since the overthrow of the regime of the late President Muammar Gaddafi in 2011.”
Saad bin Sharada, a member of the Supreme Council of State, said: “You may agree with Al-Majdoub or disagree, and you may see in his project something worthy of discussion, or what needs reviewing, but the truth is that courage today has become a rare currency in the Libyan scene.” Ben Charada believes that “a person coming to the forefront and clearly declaring his desire to bear the responsibility of leading the state, despite the limited capabilities and difficulty of the scene, this in itself is a position that requires a measure of courage,” and he went on to say that “whether we agree with Al-Majdoub’s political ambition or disagree with him, it is credited to him that he did not hide behind closed rooms, and did not wait for the opportunity to come to him without declaring his desire to assume responsibility.”
Ben Sharada concluded by saying: “Libya today does not only need someone to criticize from afar; Rather, it needs someone who has the courage to present himself and his project before the Libyans, and then leave them the final word.
Libya is suffering from a governmental and political division between two governments competing for power in Tripoli and Benghazi, while the UN mission is working to reach solutions that allow general elections to be held within two years.
Tensions are escalating between Cairo and Addis Ababa, the most recent of which was the exchange of expulsions of diplomats in light of disagreements over the Ethiopian “Renaissance Dam” that ended with the freezing of negotiations in 2024, as well as Cairo’s adherence to refusing Addis Ababa’s access to a sea port over the course of two years.
Experts who spoke to Asharq Al-Awsat believe that “the current escalation will complicate any possible political solutions to the crises (the Renaissance Dam) and the sea port,” and they expect “the failure of any potential mediation between the two countries in light of the increasing tensions.”
Egypt declared that “an Ethiopian diplomat in Cairo is persona non grata, and gave him 48 hours to leave the country,” after Addis Ababa expelled an Egyptian diplomat, according to what the official Middle East News Agency reported, on Thursday evening, from an official source.
The Egyptian source described Ethiopia's decision to expel the diplomat as "unfortunate and unjustified," stressing that Cairo "has long been committed to a policy of non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries, and that Addis Ababa is looking for an external peg" for its internal problems.
On Thursday evening, the Ethiopian Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced in a statement that “an Egyptian diplomat is persona non grata,” and informed the Egyptian embassy in Addis Ababa that he must leave Ethiopian territory within 48 hours.
Ethiopian political analyst Anwar Ibrahim believes that “Egyptian-Ethiopian relations are currently witnessing a new and unprecedented stage of escalation, which has moved from mere media disputes and mutual accusations to a more dangerous level.”
He warned that “failing to control this path urgently may push the situation towards advanced stages of tension, affecting the entire region, given the regional weight and the pivotal role of both countries in the African Union and the continental movement.”
Hussein Al-Beheiri, an African affairs expert at the National Center for Middle East Studies, points out that “the expulsion of an Egyptian diplomat, and the fabrication of allegations about neighboring countries’ support for internal conflicts, are nothing but a blatant attempt by the Ethiopian government to cover up its complex internal crises and the worsening armed conflicts in the Tigray, Afar, and Amhara regions, in addition to the escalating state of anger in the Oromia region.”
Addis Ababa aims “through these false allegations to convince the Ethiopian interior of the existence of external conspiracies and alliances targeting their national security,” according to Al-Behairi.
He believes that “these escalatory positions have a direct negative impact on the chances of resuming negotiations on the Renaissance Dam,” stressing that they “are conclusive evidence of the absence of political will on the part of Addis Ababa to reach a peaceful settlement or a binding legal agreement that preserves Egypt’s water rights and national security.”
The current escalation was preceded by explicit accusations from Addis Ababa against Cairo of interfering in Ethiopian affairs, as the Chief of General Staff of the Ethiopian National Defense Forces, Berhanu Jula, said a week ago that “foreign powers support the modern armed coalition to try to destabilize and weaken Ethiopia,” stressing that “the Tigray Front and the coalition cannot achieve anything alone, unless they are pushed, supported, and supplied by Sudan, Egypt, and other powers.”
Egypt implicitly denied, in a statement by Foreign Ministry spokesman Nader Zaki, a few days ago, that it was “interfering in the internal affairs of any country,” stressing that “anything else is just allegations.”
Negotiations took place between Cairo and Addis Ababa regarding the “dam” for nearly a decade, and it was decided to freeze it for 3 years before resuming it in 2023, then freeze it again in 2024, amid Ethiopia’s refusal to conclude an agreement, and its assertion that it does not harm Egypt or Sudan, the two downstream countries.
This escalation also came in light of Cairo's continued position over the past two years in rejecting Ethiopia's sea port, as well as Cairo's escalation of its rhetoric that it reserves the right to legitimately defend its water security.
Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdel Aty said, in a press conference, late last September, “There are sovereign countries that have ports on the Red Sea, and no one has the power to grant any country military maritime access, otherwise it will be chaos, especially since many African countries are landlocked, and as for commercial access, there is no crisis in it.”
Ethiopia has become a landlocked country since 1993, when Eritrea gained its independence after a three-decade war, and it depends on the ports of its neighbors, especially the port of Djibouti.
Ibrahim explains, “The continuation of political bickering and the current accusations threatens to disrupt any future paths or stages of negotiation regarding the Renaissance Dam, and may increase Egyptian fears regarding the sea port, and matters will become more difficult, and we will not reach political solutions.”
He warned “of the danger of directly linking the Renaissance Dam file, the Nile waters, and the Red Sea security file,” stressing that “merging these complex files generates a continuous series of crises, and will not serve the path of peaceful solutions, or bring the views closer between Cairo and Addis Ababa.”
Al-Behairi believes that “Ethiopia is threatening the national security of the countries of the Horn of Africa and destabilizing the region. Whether by insisting on unilateralism in managing the dam, neglecting the legitimate Egyptian demands for joint arrangements, or by issuing unreasonable statements and demands regarding the sea port, there will be no political solutions in light of the confusion and confusion that the Ethiopian authority is currently experiencing.”
The return of the representation of the “Al-Dustour” Party in the Executive Committee of the “Civil Democratic Movement” has renewed questions about the possibility of the largest opposition bloc in Egypt overcoming the crisis of “differences in ideologies” that sparked political disputes within it and resulted in the withdrawal of parties and the freezing of others.
Although the “Civil Movement” rearranged its internal structures last month, with the aim of restoring its political role, this collided with internal crises that surfaced again, as the “Al-Dustour” Party, one of the liberal-oriented parties within the movement at the time, announced its rejection of the new structure, and objected to the formation of the “Executive Committee” that replaced the “Board of Trustees.”
At that time, the “Al-Dustour” Party said that the formation of the Executive Committee was marred by “a clear imbalance in political representation,” as it was dominated by representation of the “Nasserite” and “Leftist” movements, while there was no adequate representation of the liberal movement, which does not reflect the true diversity within the movement.
Following consultations in the recent period to bring viewpoints closer between the movement’s parties, the Constitution Party announced that it had reached “a consensus formula that preserves the movement’s cohesion and its ability to play its role toward national issues.” The party said in a statement Thursday: “A meeting of the movement’s General Secretariat was held during the past few days that included various political components. The meeting resulted in the return of the liberal movement’s representation in the (Executive Committee), and the selection of the head of the Constitution Party, Dr. Wafa Sabry, to fill the seat.”
The General Coordinator of the Civil Movement, Akram Ismail, believes that the success of efforts to overcome the dispute with the Constitution Party reinforces the movement’s aspirations “to overcome any influence of differing ideologies, and to transform that pluralism into a political gain for the movement, enabling it to address different political currents.” He told Asharq Al-Awsat that “the political problems and disagreements the movement faces are natural and require organizational will, patience, and perseverance to overcome them,” stressing that “The new organizational structure includes a vision for resolving differences and bringing viewpoints closer together.”
The “Al-Dustour” Party confirmed in its statement on Thursday that its first goal will remain “to work for the public good,” and to ensure “the unity and cohesion of the civil democratic movement,” as it is “a unifying framework for the forces of the democratic civil opposition, regardless of their orientations and diversity,” and that the “observations and reservations” expressed by the party came out of its concern for “clarity of work rules and decision-making mechanisms,” and for the movement to be “expressive of its various streams and components.”
In his statements to Asharq Al-Awsat, the movement’s general coordinator, Akram Ismail, spoke of the movement’s aspiration to “activate its new vision that enables it to exploit ideological diversity to become an expression of all political components by setting a general vision agreed upon by all parties.”
The “Civil Movement” was founded in 2017, and is considered the largest Egyptian opposition group. It includes a number of public figures and political parties that adopt different ideologies, which was reflected in the existence of disagreements regarding crucial political decisions, most notably participation in the previous presidential and parliamentary elections.
The expert in political and parliamentary affairs, Deputy Director of the Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies, Dr. Amr Hashem Rabie, believes that “it is possible to build on the reconciliation that occurred with the (Al-Dustour) Party to overcome the crisis of differences in ideologies,” and he told Asharq Al-Awsat that “the movement needs to identify points of disagreement before points of agreement, so that a political mechanism can be put in place to deal with what is disputed.”
He added: “It is clear that defining these points did not happen during the last period, which caused the escalation of disagreements.” He believes that “ideological differences can be overcome by defining general political principles regarding major issues without going into details that highlight the differences. This also requires that the movement expand the circle of parties and public figures participating in it by introducing new entities.”
During the “reconciliation” statement on Thursday, the “Al-Dustour” Party stressed that what happened confirms the importance of “internal dialogue and direct communication between the components of the movement, as they are the best way to clarify positions, bring viewpoints closer, and address any discrepancies or differences,” noting “the necessity of continuing this approach in internal communication, so that any differences in viewpoints are discussed within the frameworks of the movement and its institutions, in a way that prevents the accumulation of discrepancies or the expansion of areas of misunderstanding.”
