The political environment in Libya has been engulfed by heightened tension and widespread protests following the announcement that the United Nations Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL) signed a funding agreement with the Government of Qatar. The agreement, intended to support political dialogue and enhance civil participation, has been widely denounced by the Libyan Government, the House of Representatives, and political parties. Critics view the action as an unprecedented deviation from the UN’s neutral role and a direct intervention compromising national sovereignty.
Details of the Agreement and the Spark of the Crisis
The crisis erupted after UNSMIL detailed the agreement, signed by Qatari Ambassador Khalid Al-Dosari and UN Development Programme Resident Representative Sophie Kemkhadze. While the Mission maintained that the funding would bolster civil participation and support a political track that should be “Libyan-led and Libyan-owned,” and the Qatari Embassy asserted the support fell within the scope of “enhancing stability and developing developmental programmes,” the resulting Libyan backlash was comprehensive.
Government and Parties Condemn Dangerous Conduct and Reject Guardianship
The Libyan Government delivered a harsh response, issuing a statement that condemned the deal as “dangerous and unprecedented conduct,” defining it as a “flagrant overreach of authorities” and a “blatant diplomatic assault” on sovereign affairs. The Government insisted that UNSMIL had “deviated from neutrality standards” and that its pursuit of external funding for political operations inside Libya represents an “attempt to resuscitate externally imposed political tracks.” Consequently, the Government declared a complete suspension of all forms of dealing with the Mission, conditioning the reversal of this decision on UNSMIL’s withdrawal from the agreement, a formal apology and clarification, while stressing that any foreign-funded dialogue “will not enjoy legitimacy.”
The Assembly of Libyan Political Parties joined the condemnation with a statement, labelling the agreement a “scandalous abuse of the Mission’s powers” and a “gross departure from UN neutrality,” warning that the move transforms the UN’s role from one of support into one of “guardianship.” The Assembly argued that signing a political and financial agreement without the knowledge or coordination of any official Libyan institution “violates diplomatic norms,” asserting that externally funded dialogue does not reflect “the will of the Libyans but the interests of its financiers.”
External Bias Threatens Political Process
At the parliamentary level, the National Defence and Security Committee of the House of Representatives fully endorsed the Government’s stance, viewing the signing of the agreement as a serious breach of the principle of neutrality that pushes for the internationalisation of the Libyan crisis through “dubious instruments.” The Committee warned that foreign funding threatens the independence of the political process, calling for a thorough review of UNSMIL’s role and potentially reassessing its continued presence in Libya if it persists in “showing bias towards a foreign party.”
Libyan Parliamentarians intensified the objections. MP Rabia Buraas warned that the Qatari funding imparts a “political dimension that cannot be ignored” to the dialogue, demanding oversight of the spending. MP Balkheir Al-Sha’ab underscored the threat with the assertion that “the moneylender owns the tools,” cautioning against external influence on the political agenda. The outrage culminated with MP Said Amgheib demanding an emergency session of the House of Representatives to “expel the UN Mission,” describing the situation as “intolerable interference.” Adding to the criticism, former Libyan Ambassador Mohammad Khalifa Al-Akerout suggested that Qatar is seeking to “purchase loyalties” and predicted that its influence would be “fragile” and bound to collapse at the first test.
This crisis represents the biggest challenge faced by UNSMIL since 2011, as concerns deepen that external funding could alter national negotiation tracks and compromise the independence of Libyan decision-making. The episode puts the relationship between the Mission and Libya to a serious test, amid mounting demands for greater clarity, transparency, and absolute respect for national sovereignty during a highly sensitive phase.