The announcement by the United Nations Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL) to launch a “Structured Dialogue” track has ignited a wide-ranging political debate. This initiative is a pivotal component of the political roadmap presented to the Security Council last October by the UN Envoy, Hanna Tetteh. The Mission has already begun receiving nominations for approximately 120 Libyan figures, representing diverse civil and social sectors, ahead of the official launch scheduled for November.
This dialogue is one of the three core pillars of the Mission’s plan, alongside drafting a politically viable technical electoral framework and forming a new unified government to merge institutions. The key objectives are to forge a shared national vision, address the long-standing root causes of the conflict, and establish practical policies and recommendations to create a conducive environment for elections. Furthermore, the dialogue aims to resolve outstanding issues from previous, unimplemented political tracks. Selection criteria emphasize diverse representation and practical experience in at least one of four core fields: the economy, governance, security, or national reconciliation and human rights. A mechanism to ensure the implementation of the outcomes and submission of recommendations to relevant governmental bodies is also being planned.
Fierce Opposition and Official Government Backlash
The first official response came in the form of a strongly worded statement from the Libyan Government, headed by Osama Hammad. The statement accused the UN Mission of circumventing the first two phases of the roadmap and leaping directly to the “Structured Dialogue” without resolving the fate of prior steps, namely the restructuring of the High National Election Commission (HNEC) board and resolving disputes over the electoral laws.
Hammad sharply criticized the Mission’s direct outreach to universities and municipalities without coordinating with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, denouncing it as an “infringement on national sovereignty and a clear violation of international agreements.” He concluded that this overreach had “killed optimism in the map’s success before it even started.” The Prime Minister stressed that national reconciliation is a “purely internal matter” that should not be subjected to external interference or tutelage, emphasizing that UNSMIL’s mandate is strictly limited to advisory and technical support under Security Council resolutions.
A UN Tactic Amidst Divergent Libyan Stances
The UN Mission is banking on this new track as an “alternative approach” to generate social momentum that could pressure the House of Representatives (HoR) and the High State Council (HSC). These bodies continue to exhibit political inertia in implementing the first phase of the plan (HNEC restructuring and amending the electoral framework), despite having agreed on 4 October to appoint heads of sovereign positions, including the HNEC, within ten days.
Against this backdrop, Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar, the General Commander of the Armed Forces, called for a “purely Libyan roadmap based on local legitimacy,” rejecting the UN-led map as one “whose threads were woven behind borders.” Conversely, neither the Presidential Council nor the Government of National Unity in Tripoli has issued an official position to date, nor have political parties or civil society organizations commented on the Mission’s call for nominations.
Analysts’ Verdict: A Rare Opportunity vs. Repeating Past Failures
Political analysts offered conflicting views on the utility of the “Structured Dialogue”:
Potential for a Breakthrough (Maa’yoush and Farkash): Political analyst Faraj Farkash suggested the dialogue could be a “rare opportunity to end the political division,” provided it bypasses the “current political bodies” (HoR and HSC), which he sees as more of the problem than the solution. Farkash warned against relying on these bodies, criticizing the Mission’s “confusion” and repetition of old patterns, urging a focus on the constitutional track and institutional unification. Similarly, political researcher Abu Bakr Maa’yoush deemed the step “serious for rebuilding the political process on broader foundations,” arguing that expanding participation is a positive move. He noted that setting a time frame for the dialogue (4-6 months) as a parallel track suggests the Mission has learned from past failures, such as the Skhirat Agreement.
Skepticism on Effectiveness and Implementation (Al-Tabbal and Al-Kabeer): Party activist Arhouma Al-Tabbal expressed doubt, believing the dialogue is “fundamentally no different from its predecessors except in name,” and will likely devolve into “consultative sessions with no executive power” because it ignores effective power centres on the ground. He also criticized the “vagueness” of the Mission’s selection criteria. In contrast, journalist Abdullah Al-Kabeer asserted that the primary goal is to “pressure the two main bodies” (HoR and HSC), speculating that the dialogue might evolve into an “actual decision-making platform,” much like the Geneva Dialogue overseen by Stephanie Williams, despite the Mission’s formal denial of this aim.
Concerns over Selection Criteria and Enforcement Power
For his part, Ali Al-Sweih, a member of the High State Council, warned that lax selection criteria could lead to weak or unimplementable outcomes, potentially deepening the crisis. He stressed that the success of any initiative hinges on a genuine political will to adopt its outcomes and the Mission’s capacity to enforce them on all parties.
In a related vein, HoR member Saeed Imgheib questioned the efficacy of the UN track, stating that the restructuring and extension of the Mission’s mandate are “proof of its past and probable future failure.” He argued that the “Structured Dialogue” offers no new solutions, merely recycling the political crisis in a “vicious cycle” of persistent political gridlock.
Ultimately, Libyan hopes are suspended between domestic skepticism and the UN’s ambition. The success of this path hinges on the willingness of Libyan actors to offer genuine concessions, prioritise the national interest, and finally end the chronic state of division.
