@Mhmoud
It is great to see a Libyan brother on PDF. As you might have gathered from my posts in this thread, I am interested in long-term visions and projects of Arab country x and y and potential regional blocs in the Arab world.
Let us pretend (fantasy world) that there are no dictators or regimes in the Arab world or Muslim world and that people (all) will have an equal say and decide the biggest questions through voting.
Some questions in such scenario:
1) Are you in favor of the unity of Libya or do you prefer a federal state or 3 separate states (West, East and South) closely working together in some union?
2) Would you support greater integration of Libya with neighboring Arab states and the Arab world as a whole?
2) If yes, would you look east (Egypt and the Mashriq) or West (Maghreb)?
3) If you ask people of Eastern Libya they will probably answer the first option and those in the West the second.
4) What can and should KSA be doing with the current situation in Libya in your eyes? Talk with both parties as currently?
5) How strong are MB-inspired movements in Libya? I know that most Libyans are religious but the MB is mainly an Egyptian political movement (should be understood in the Egyptian context) that is moreover over 100 years old.
6) Obviously the vast majority of Libyans are in favor (like all other Arabs) of Arab-Islamic cooperation between Arab countries, governments and most importantly people. Which party, movement or person would best accomplish that goal in Libya in your eyes?
Apologies for the many questions, just have to ask to make this discussion and thread more interesting so it will not purely be about what is going on, on the ground in the form of battles.
I honestly thing this is necessary to ask ourselves where things are moving and what should be done and what should not be done in an ideal world. I mean those of us who are not actively involved in the fighting or political discussions which means, 99,9% of all Arabs and vast, vast majority of most Libyans as well. We are just looking at this sad and unfortunate mess from the outside.
Thank you for your questions. It is nice to hear from someone who is interested in the long term prospects of the Arab world.
So to answer your questions:
1. To be honest, the case for the federalism of Libya stems from the competition between Tripolitania, Barqa and Fezzan. The issue is that under Libyan law, the cities and municipalities get their funding from the Government in direct correlation to their population.
The issue is that tripolitania has over two thirds of the Libyan population. Because of this, the municipalities are better able to spend on infrastructure and have relatively lower initial costs for their projects, meaning that this part of Libya enjoys the highest quality of life. Cyrenaica and Fezzan are both less populated, and Fezzan is doubly cursed by being a remote area hard to reach, which means that much of the stuff that they need has to be airlifted, costing them a lot of money.
I do agree that Fezzan needs a lot more funding, but the model for federalism would only work for the politicians of Cyrenaica. They are already worth more in votes though. The single vote in Cyrenaica, in the 2012 elections, was worth 3 times a Tripolitanian vote, and the Fezzani vote seven times that of a Tripolitanian. So they do get a disproportionately high political representation as well, which must also be fixed.
2.1. I myself am a pan-Arabist, and a very passionate one that. I think that we must integrate more in terms of trade and diplomacy and other peaceful endeavours. The fence between Morocco and Algeria must be pulled down and we must allow people to flow freely and trade freely as well. However, I don't think a political integration would be desired by the current rulers. It would be pitting one ruler against another, rather than them being united in keeping themselves in power. As a democrat, I do support the Sudanese uprising, but as we know, there were foreign actors involved in the quelling, as well as the Rebaa massacre in Egypt. Once discontent reaches a critical mass of people, there really isn't much to stop it apart from violence.
When people protest and they know that they'll be arrested, they have little to lose. We have been hearing of the slow collapse of the Sudanese economy for years, and the people have nothing to lose. They are now being reminded that they can lose something, their life. As with Assad and Russia, and as with Gaddafi and the AU, Sudan's higher-ups have a backer, a guarantor, who guarantees that they will not fall if they follow their actions. Likewise, protests are contageous. People all over Sudan are protesting, but not people in Yemen, because they aren't in the same country, not in the same territorial area as the concept of Sudan. It would be a very high-stakes game that if the rulers mess up the first time, they will have messed up permanently, and they fall. That is, if they keep their power during their integration.
The integration problem is exemplified perfectly in the Arab Islamic Republic, which lived from January 1974, to January 1974. That is because they disagreed on who will rule the country and where the capital will be. If our population agrees to a political integration, we will need a political class that agrees with them.
2.2. I think that the issue with the East (Egypt) is the fact that their politics is mostly got to do with the Army, in one way or another. The thing with this is that it isn't healthy and it seeps into civilian life. There is also a lot of foreign policy within the Middle east proper, and all the countries have a stake in one another as well. Although I am a very ardent pan-Arabist myself, I think that the individual states mustn't really get involved in the armed conflicts of one another. This is because they aren't fighting for people, but for interests. The concept that 'a king is king by the grace of his people' only works when the people are the only variable.
The Maghreb model of a civilian government over the military, as well as their gradual professionalisation and slow democratisation is also attractive, since it keeps the military to do military stuff. In Tunisia, the military has improved significantly and it is actually very competent, even though it doesn't partake in any interventions or foreign advertures. However, what I don't like about the Maghereb is the fact that every Maghreb country is quite insular and inwards-focused. There must be ties and trade and other things that can improve the average Maghrebi's life a lot more, but the governments just keep going on their trade with Europe and little else. A bit more activity might get the blood flowing and do the economies good.
4. The KSA is principally in the business of oil and their foreign policy is greatly aligned with the UAE. The current one involves the extradition of people asked by Haftar, sending him armoured vehicles (and 600 Toyota Hilux cars as well, according to the UN), and general political and public support in PR. They are quite aligned with the UAE here, as Mohammed Bin Zayed was one of the three people who convinced King Salman that the Arab Spring was a force to oppose.
In a way, it follows the UAE's lead in this, as does Egypt. However, if I were Prince Mohammed Bin Salman, I would reevaluate it in general. I think that the people and the rulers must converge. This is because if they are in conflict, the eventual result will nto be good, and suppressing a rebellion without fixing its causes will cause it to start once more. This was a reason for the Vision 2030, as oil becomes an increasingly irrelevant resource in comparison to the past. The Kings of Jordan, Morocco and Kuwait have decided to put more political power in their parliaments and civic politics, which is a good thing. They have managed to reduce any prospects for rebellion to zero, as people have a stake on the change in their country, even when the real power that the king wields like that over the revenues and the foreign policy don't change too much.
I think that to improve the image of KSA on the Libyan people, they might want to keep their public foreign policy with their private ones, which will guarantee that any elected government after the war will keep cordial and good relations with the country, in addition to them being more independent. Haftar is guaranteed to not survive in this war even if he took all cities, unless he enjoys massive foreign support and funding. The Gulf already supports Egypt and Sudan in their security matters, so his rule would be very expensive while it lasts. talking with both parties would be risky as both have designated one another as a terrorist organisation and will not talk. The GNA has made it clear that they will not include Haftar in any future political negotiation.
5. You are correct that the MB is primarily an Egyptian political movement. In Libya, there have been plenty of extremists who have done some pretty nasty stuff like destroy historical mosques and all, but they are mostly either arrested, joined Haftar's Saiqa or joined ISIS then bombed by the US under a request by the GNA. There are MB-allied parties though, mostly in the previous Islamist government. Although they did give some pretty shady deals like lending the Egyptian government $12 billion at zero interest and other things in 2012, they aren't linked in an official way to the MB.
The MB does have a branch in Libya, but people are mostly hostile to it because they don't want to be involved in the dirt between it and the states. People are legitimately terrified of being associated with them. Most of their supporters are private people dispersed throughout the place, although you can hear an accusation of someone an MB member everywhere nowadays, which is mostly to do with justifying an arrest.
6. In my eyes, most of us don't really have a lot of candidates to choose from, as most of them are part of the legislature or part of the political process and aren't too visible within the current political scene. It is likely that the next ruler is somebody who was a semi-outsider in politics, as many people in the political scene currently are only on the job because there isn't anybody to replace them. However, if I had to choose some people to support, I woudl choose Noman Benothman, or Mustafa Sun3ullah (Sanallah) or fathi Bashagha.
Noman Benothman is the founder of the Quilliam Foundation and is a public figure considered a legend in social media. He has the popularity, the international and domestic recognition, and the credentials as somebody who fights extremism every day, to succeed as a political leader.
Mustafa Sanallah is a really good negotiator. As the chairman of the National Oil Corporation, he somehow succeeded largely in restarting production at the same time as keeping it out of the conflict. His diplomacy is legendary in that he still manages to keep Libya's economic outlook looking bright despite the war, and the 25% increase in our GDP in 3 years is mostly because of this man.
Finally, Fathi Bashagha is a Misratan who used to lead a militia. He is the current minister of the interior. He is very involved in the fight against ISIS, and he had his own son injured in the battle for Sirte. He is credited largely for the reintegration of Tripoli's and other cities' militias and weaning them from power. So in effect, he has done what was almost impossible to do. He stopped the state capture of militias. He is also a skilled diplomat who has been involved in delegations and negotiations in stopping the fighting between different militias and cities, and has brought one of the fiercest conflicts, that between Misrata and Zintan, to an end and made them allies.
In terms of movements, though, I think that the general Arab Spring must win in this case, as it signifies the solidarity and the unity between different Arabs. A pan-Arabist democratic and civic nationalist movement (inclusive of different minorities as part of the nation) will mean that nobody after then will be able to encroach upon the rights of our citizens everywhere. The economic intergration will be something to behold as the gains will benefit everybody, from the Mauritanian fisherman to the Saudi investor to the Lebanese entrepreneur to the Sudanese engineer. It will also mean that nobody can humiliate us militarily like Israel has with Syria or the US with Iraq. Only then will we be powerful, fully independent and only then will we have the freedom to prosper.
After all, when the Plutarch of Scilurus was on his deathbed, he told his sons to grab a bundle of darts and try to break them. When they all failed, he showed them how easily they can be broken individually, cautioning them that their strength in their family lay in their unity. Likewise, our strength will only lie in our unity.
Sorry for the late reply, as this took a bit to write. Thank you for asking these questions and I must say that it was actually really enjoyable to write this. Thank you. I agree with you wholeheartedly that the vast majority of us are only looking to live a good life and to get by.
As you might have gathered from my posts in this thread, I am interested in long-term visions and projects of Arab country x and y and potential regional blocs in the Arab world.
