Arrow Down Arrow Left Arrow Right Arrow Up Camera icon set icon set Ellipsis icon set Facebook Favorite Globe Hamburger List Mail Map Marker Map Microphone Minus PDF Play Print RSS Search Share Trash Twitter Video Camera Youtube
Europe’s Chance in Africa
Europe’s Chance in Africa

It’s Not a Sprint

Originally published in Körber-Stiftung

The fraught history of the military intervention shows that EU engagement in Libya should first and foremost be guided by strategic vision.

Whatever one thinks of the initial military engagement leading to the eventual downfall of the country’s leader Muammar Qaddafi, there is no doubt that the international community failed Libya after the intervention. Today, Libya is a quasi-failed state, with multiple governments competing for legitimacy. Its accumulated wealth, its oil and a residual Libyan nationalism seem to be all that keeps the country from further fragmentation. This increasing power vacuum has turned Libya into a conduit for desperate migrants trying to reach the shores of Europe. In the absence of a well-functioning state, criminal interests exploit human misery, all the more so as people smuggling remains one of the few viable activities in a collapsed economy. 

The migrant crisis adds a measure of urgency to discussions on Libya and threatens to further divide Europeans at a time when more European unity and strategic vision are needed. The stabilization of Libya and a humane response to the migrant crisis are closely related. Without an effective partner in Tripoli, the EU is unable to stem the flow of migrants in a manner consistent with international law and its own human rights standards. But stabilizing Libya requires patience and a long-term perspective that are hardly compatible with the domestic pressures under which European governments operate when it comes to the question of migration. This has led to a wrong choice of priorities: today the EU and its member states seem more preoccupied with stopping by all means available the flow of migrants than with working for an elusive political solution.

This short-term mind set is illustrated by European support for Libyan coast guards which, in the absence of an inclusive political agreement, can be considered as just another militia. Likewise, various deals rumoured to have been struck with militias to control the southern border of Libya may end up strengthening non-state actors at a time when the international community needs to have a strong state to deal with instead. And pressing the government of Prime Minister Serraj to embrace an agenda driven by European rather than Libyan priorities will not help it gain legitimacy in Libya.

The migrant crisis adds a measure of urgency to discussions on Libya and threatens to further divide Europeans.

It sometimes seems that the left hand of the international community is undoing what the right hand is trying to do. Indeed, the disparity between Libyan priorities and Europe’s anxieties over migration and terrorism is not the only dynamic that makes Libya the victim of outside powers’ competing agendas. There are also the differences over political Islam between Gulf monarchies and other Arab states, and the competing regional visions of Egypt and Turkey.

The result of these clashing interests has been a botched political process that is not only unable to address the growing fragmentation of Libya but is also making it worse. While the government of national accord installed in Tripoli enjoys UN and international backing, as well as the strong support of individual countries, particularly Italy, its authority over the country is limited. General Haftar has effective control over a significant part of the east. The only institutions embodying the unity of Libya are the central bank and the National Oil Corporation. But that unity is increasingly jeopardised by Libyan actors’ predatory behaviour, and the actions of outside powers supporting proxies. Regional actors have not created the internal divisions of Libya, but they contribute to their deepening.

What then can be done? The starting point should be to do no harm and to support the new special envoy of the UN Secretary General in Libya, Ghassan Salamé, as he tries to restore Libyan trust in the international community. The European Union should be more united, take a longer-term perspective and align its priorities with the priorities of Libya. The only sustainable way to stem the flow of migrants into Europe is to have a stable Libya that can not only control its borders, but also offer job opportunities to the migrants that have traditionally come to the country.

The European Union should be more united, take a longer-term perspective and align its priorities with the priorities of Libya.

The reconstruction of Libya can provide such economic opportunities for migrants, but only with a more inclusive and more impartial approach to the political process, and an acknowledgment that a foreign-imposed legitimacy is bound to fail. Security arrangements must be negotiated not just for Tripoli, but for the whole of Libya, starting with the south and the west. Peace also requires that the predatory economy sustaining the war is effectively countered. The European Union and the international community can help in this regard, because the illicit economy is for a large part based on the smuggling of subsidised fuel, a trade that needs international partners to thrive.

Germany has a particular role to play in that effort. Since Germany, at that time an elected member of the UN Security Council, parted ways with its Western partners in 2011 and refused to support the resolution that led to the military intervention, Berlin has not been compromised in the ousting of Qaddafi. Also, Germany has no major interests in the oil economy of Libya. Its interest is in the stabilization of Libya, which will contribute to the stabilization of the Sahel, to better migration policies, and will eventually create opportunities for German companies. Libya is of strategic importance for Europe, not as a buffer state between Europe and sub-Saharan Africa, but as a full-fledged partner that can help manage the much bigger challenges emanating from the poor, populous African states to the south.

Op-Ed / Africa

Europe’s Chance in Africa

Originally published in Berlin Policy Journal

With the UK’s withdrawal from the EU now imminent, a dramatic power shift is changing the balances behind the scenes of the fifth African Union-European Union summit this week in Côte d’Ivoire. It is an opportunity for the EU to forge a new Africa strategy.

Two former colonial powers of the European Union, France and the United Kingdom, have long shaped the bloc’s approach to Africa. France kept the EU’s focus on West Africa and the Sahel, while the UK made sure that the Horn of Africa and East Africa would not be ignored. After Brexit, that may all be about to change.

The UK provides almost 15 percent of the budget for the European Development Fund, which runs until 2020, and through which the African Union’s peace and security activities are funded. Somalia, which has close ties to Britain, is by far the continent’s greatest recipient of this funding.

Meanwhile, France has championed the efforts of Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania, and Niger, known collectively as the G5 Sahel, to combat cross-border jihadist and criminal threats. A French military force comprising 4,000 troops has been based in Chad since 2014, leading the effort to counter the spread of jihadism across the region.

The EU’s strategy has thus been more a compilation of national strategies than a truly European plan. The UK’s withdrawal opens a major funding gap for the EU’s development fund, and the European response must be more than a mere redeployment of limited resources toward West Africa.

Germany’s New Interest

France, with good reasons, will undoubtedly push the EU to give a higher priority to the Sahel. The paltry €50 million awarded by the EU to the G5 Sahel force are largely the product of French diplomatic efforts, as is EU support for the recently launched Alliance for the Sahel. This increased European interest in the Sahel is welcome, but it needs to have a broader base than French diplomacy. By chance, Brexit coincides with increased German interest in Africa.

Partly because of the European migration crisis, Germany has recognized that instability in Africa directly affects its national interests. In January 2017, it unveiled its “Marshall Plan with Africa,” hoping to promote bottom-up economic development and greater employment opportunities for Africans. Germany also raised its troop ceiling from 650 to 1,000 for MINUSMA, the UN peacekeeping mission in Mali. It is now Berlin’s largest military deployment, exceeding those in Afghanistan and northern Iraq. However, there are still major differences between Germany, which favors a largely civilian approach to African issues, and France, which has not shied away from bold military missions in an emergency.

A truly European strategy for Africa should borrow from the best of the diverse cultures of its member states, and the EU should use the likely reduction in funding as an opportunity to review its priorities, its methods, and its procedures. The Europeans should discuss with their African interlocutors the best way to support an African security architecture able to respond to new and emerging threats: is it through ad-hoc, regional coalitions like the G5 Sahel and the Multinational Joint Task Force combating Boko Haram in Lake Chad, or African Union-led peace operations such as AMISOM?

They should develop a more strategic vision of the relationship with Africa, and of the respective roles of the private sector and public development aid. They should also take a hard look at the way they disburse funds, with excessive management costs, uncoordinated national and EU rules, and rigid procedures that pale in comparison to the swift decision-making of China.

Thursday and Friday’s AU-EU summit in Abidjan should thus be seized as an opportunity to identify shared strategic interests: Africa and Europe are neighbors and they need each other to succeed, but the asymmetric nature of the relationship, as research by International Crisis Group shows, has led to much frustration. An honest appraisal of past successes and failures of past African-European relations would be a good foundation for the future.