Libya between the UN track and the American initiative: international divergence over the future
Amid growing European support for the United Nations track and U.S. moves to reshape power balances, Libya is entering a new phase of international competition over the form of the political settlement and the next stage.
In recent weeks, Libya has witnessed a clear rise in international diplomatic activity linked to the political settlement process, within which two parallel approaches to managing the crisis are emerging. The first, led by the United Nations with broad European backing, promotes the roadmap of UN envoy Hanna Tetteh. The second operates under U.S. sponsorship led by Massad Boulos, focusing on restructuring authority and unifying institutions before any electoral milestone.
Observers believe Tripoli has gradually become an arena of competition between two different visions for Libya’s future, as international powers seek to prevent the country from sliding back into political and security division.
During the monthly coordination meeting of European Union ambassadors to Libya on Tuesday, the scale of European commitment to Tetteh’s initiative was evident, as it is viewed as the most capable path for preserving existing balances and preventing a total collapse of the political process.
The meeting, held in Tripoli, carried multiple political messages, particularly when the EU ambassador to Libya, Nicola Orlando, stressed that Brussels sees Tetteh’s roadmap as the legitimate framework capable of bringing Libyan parties together under a unified international umbrella, away from parallel tracks.
The presence of the head of the EU Border Assistance Mission and the commander of Operation Irini was not merely ceremonial, but reflected growing European awareness that the Libyan crisis has exceeded internal boundaries and is now directly linked to Mediterranean security, irregular migration, and cross-border smuggling networks.
Analysts believe the EU now views Libya’s stability as part of its strategic security, especially amid mounting pressures related to migration, energy, and fears of armed group expansion in North Africa and the Sahel.
Clash of approaches
The divergence between the European and American approaches reflects not only different tools but also a deeper struggle over the shape of Libya’s future state and who has the authority to define the rules of the new transitional phase.
The United Nations, backed by Europe, bets on gradually building consensus leading to elections that would grant popular legitimacy to future institutions, while Washington appears more inclined to first solidify power arrangements before moving to political milestones.
Observers argue that this difference reflects the nature of the two approaches: Europeans fear the total collapse of the political track and the resulting security chaos and migration waves, whereas Washington focuses on establishing more stable arrangements between eastern and western power centers before any electoral venture.
Although both sides declare support for Libya’s unity and stability, differing priorities could lead to friction in managing the next phase, particularly if Libyan actors perceive the existence of two competing tracks for legitimacy and influence.
The Rome Agreement
The UN move is based on what the mission describes as a “two-step approach” presented by Hanna Tetteh to the Security Council earlier this year: first resolving institutional deadlock, then moving toward implementable electoral arrangements.
The first outcome of this approach appeared in the “Rome Agreement” signed in late April under UN auspices with Italian support, where the “4+4” mechanism bringing together representatives from eastern and western governments achieved a political breakthrough by agreeing to reconstitute the electoral commission’s council and attempting to overcome constitutional complexities that have stalled elections for years.
However, the agreement was not received smoothly in western Libya, where political forces expressed concerns that the small committee could become a de facto alternative to existing formal institutions.
In this context, the move by High Council of State president Mohamed Takala to form a new communication committee with the House of Representatives reflects an attempt at political repositioning so as not to leave the initiative entirely to the UN track.
Observers believe this hesitation reflects fears that international understandings may produce a top-down settlement that redistributes influence without addressing the root causes of the political crisis.
Washington: a different approach
By contrast, Washington operates from a different angle, less focused on elections and more concerned with building pragmatic understandings between the country’s main power centers.
The moves associated with Massad Boulos, now described in Libyan circles as the “Boulos Initiative,” are based on the assumption that holding elections before unifying security and economic institutions could reproduce division and lead to renewed conflict.
Thus, the American approach emphasizes forming a small government, restructuring the Presidential Council, pushing for a unified budget, and gradual security arrangements between east and west.
Washington seeks to present this vision as a practical solution that precedes elections without canceling them, while critics see it as an attempt to legitimize existing power balances rather than directly resorting to the ballot box.
Internal division
The American initiative has faced clear rejection from political and military forces in western Libya, particularly in Misrata, where many actors believe any power-sharing formula outside the electoral process constitutes a circumvention of popular will and an entrenchment of quota-based politics.
Conversely, figures aligned with the House of Representatives and the eastern Libyan camp view the American move as more realistic and implementable compared to previous UN processes that repeatedly faltered due to constitutional disputes.
Supporters of this direction point to field indicators, notably joint military exercises conducted under the “Flintlock 26” drills hosted by the city of Sirte, seeing them as evidence of international will to advance security and military unification alongside political arrangements.
