Libya: Transition and U.S. Policy
Christopher M. Blanchard
Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs
April 20, 2016
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL33142
Libya: Transition and U.S. Policy
Summary
Libya’s political transition has been disrupted by armed non-state groups and threatened by the
indecision and infighting of interim leaders. After an armed uprising ended the 40-plus year rule
of Muammar al Qadhafi in late 2011, interim authorities proved unable to form a stable
government, address pressing security issues, reshape the country’s public finances, or create a
viable framework for post-conflict justice and reconciliation.
Elections for legislative bodies and a constitutional drafting assembly were held and transparently
administered in 2012 and 2014, but were marred by declining rates of participation, threats to
candidates and voters, and zero-sum political competition. Insecurity remained prevalent in Libya
following the 2011 conflict and deepened in 2014, driven by overlapping ideological, personal,
financial, and transnational rivalries. Resulting conflicts involving Libyans in different parts of
the country drove the political transition off course. At present, armed militia groups and locally
organized political leaders remain the most powerful arbiters of public affairs. Criminals and
violent Islamist extremist organizations have exploited these conditions, and the latter have
strengthened their military capabilities and advanced their ideological agendas inside Libya and
beyond its borders.
U.S. officials and other international actors have worked since August 2014 to convince Libyan
factions and their regional supporters that inclusive, representative government and negotiation
are preferable to competing groups’ attempts to achieve dominance through force of arms. In
August 2014, the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council adopted Resolution 2174, authorizing
the placement of financial and travel sanctions on individuals and entities in Libya and
internationally who are found to be “engaging in or providing support for other acts that threaten
the peace, stability or security of Libya, or obstruct or undermine the successful completion of its
political transition.”
In December 2015, some Libyan leaders endorsed a U.N.-brokered agreement to create a
Government of National Accord (GNA) to oversee the completion of the transition. GNA Prime
Minister-designate Fayez al Sarraj and some members of a proposed GNA presidency council
returned to Libya in late March 2016 and are seeking to finalize implementation of the agreement
with the backing of the U.N. Security Council, the U.S. government, and several European and
Arab governments. Nevertheless, some Libyans reject the agreement, describe GNA leaders as
foreign-imposed interlopers, and have threatened to defend their interests by force if necessary.
The U.S. State Department describes Libya as a terrorist safe haven, and the U.S. government
suspended operations at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli and relocated U.S. personnel out of the
country in July 2014. The Islamic State’s (IS) rise in parts of Libya has become a matter of deep
concern among Libyans and the international community, as have the continuing weakness of
Libyan state institutions and flows of migrants, refugees, and contraband across Libya’s
unpoliced borders. In February 2016, senior U.S. intelligence officials identified the IS presence
in Libya as the group’s most developed branch outside of Syria and Iraq and suggested that
presence could grow more dangerous if left unchecked.
Congress has conditionally appropriated funding for limited U.S. transition assistance and
security assistance programs for Libya since 2011. Congressional consideration of the September
2012 attacks on U.S. facilities and personnel in Benghazi is ongoing. In 2015, conflict mitigation
appeared to be the Obama Administration’s top policy priority in Libya, but statements made by
U.S. officials in 2016 suggest that U.S. counterterrorism concerns have grown and that military
action against the Islamic State, Al Qaeda, and other extremists in Libya may continue and/or
expand in as yet unspecified ways, even if political consensus among Libyans remains elusive.
Congressional Research Service
Libya: Transition and U.S. Policy
Contents
Overview ......................................................................................................................................... 1
Political and Security Dynamics ..................................................................................................... 2
Libya’s Political Landscape ...................................................................................................... 2
Conflict, Spending, and Low Oil Prices Raise Prospect of Fiscal Collapse ............................. 6
The Islamic State Threat ........................................................................................................... 8
Ansar al Sharia and other Armed Islamist Groups .............................................................. 8
Migration and Trafficking in Persons ...................................................................................... 10
U.S. Policy, Assistance, and Military Action .................................................................................. 11
Counterterrorism Policy and Security Sector Assistance ........................................................ 12
Foreign Assistance Programs .................................................................................................. 14
Outlook and Issues for Congress ................................................................................................... 16
Figures
Figure 1. Migration and Refugee Routes to Libya, 2014-2015 ...................................................... 11
Tables
Table 1. Libya Map and Facts ......................................................................................................... 5
Table 2. U.S. Foreign Assistance and Libya-Related Program Funding ....................................... 16
Table B-1. U.S. Assistance to Libya FY2010-FY2015 ................................................................. 22
Appendixes
Appendix A. Libyan History, Civil War, and Political Change ..................................................... 18
Appendix B. U.S. Assistance to Libya FY2010-FY2015 .............................................................. 22
Contacts
Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 23
Congressional Research Service
Libya: Transition and U.S. Policy
Overview
More than four years after a U.S.-led NATO military intervention helped Libyan rebels topple the
authoritarian government of Muammar al Qadhafi, Libya remains politically fragmented and its
security is threatened by terrorist organizations and infighting among interim leaders and locally
organized armed groups. Rival governing entities based in eastern and western Libya remained
locked in a heated political disputes from mid-2014 through late 2015, when a United Nations
facilitated dialogue process culminated in some members of both governments agreeing to the
establishment of a proposed Government of National Accord (GNA). As of April 2016, officials
affiliated with the GNA Presidency Council had returned to Tripoli and were seeking to
consolidate control over government institutions and build support among competing Libyan
factions with the backing of the U.N. Security Council, the U.N. Support Mission in Libya
(UNSMIL), the U.S. government, the European Union, and several regional governments.
The United States and other third parties continue to assess the security situation in the country
and intermittently strike terrorist targets in different areas. Members of Congress and U.S.
officials are considering options for future engagement in Libya with two parallel goals:
supporting the emergence of unified, capable national governance and reducing transnational
threats posed by Libya’s instability and Libya-based terrorists.
Pursuing these goals simultaneously presents U.S. policymakers with choices regarding relative
priorities, including the types and timing of possible aid and/or interventions, the nature and
extent of U.S. partnership with various Libyan groups, the potential use of sanctions or other
coercive measures, and relations with other countries seeking to influence developments in line
with their own interests. In February 2016, senior U.S. officials acknowledged the interrelated
nature of U.S. objectives, with Director of National Intelligence James Clapper referring to a
“dilemma ... in terms of a more robust military intervention in Libya, and the potential jeopardy
that imposes to a very fragile evolving political process.”1
Different international parties’ relative perceptions of risk, relative interests, and relative priorities
appear to shape their views of this “dilemma.” Proponents of a more patient and/or hands-off
approach have argued that agreements reached among Libyans with minimal external interference
will result in more durable governance and stability than outcomes or actions perceived to be
imposed by foreign powers. Proponents of an urgent and/or interventionist approach have argued
that unless third-parties such as the U.N. Security Council, the United States, the European
Union, and neighboring states play a coordinating and partially coercive role, Libyan parties may
not resolve their differences quickly enough to avert fiscal collapse or meet threats from the
Islamic State. The United States and several European countries have endorsed the GNA
government and as of April 2016, the United States and the European Union had placed sanctions
on some Libyan leaders for obstruction of the GNA agreement.2
Related questions before the 114th Congress concern President Obama’s appropriations requests
for FY2017 foreign assistance and defense funding for Libya programs as well as ongoing
congressional oversight of U.S. diplomacy, counterterrorism efforts, and proposals for support to
the emergent GNA.
1 Testimony of DNI Clapper and Central Intelligence Agency Director John Brennan before the House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence, February 25, 2016.
2 As of April 1, the EU had placed sanctions on GNC government Prime Minister Khalifa Ghwell, GNC President
Nouri Abou Sahmain, and HOR speaker Agilah Saleh. On April 19, the United States issued an Executive Order
altering U.S. sanctions related to Libya and placing sanctions on Khalifa Ghwell.
Congressional Research Service
1
link to page 21 Libya: Transition and U.S. Policy
Political and Security Dynamics
In 2014 Libya’s transition from Qadhafi’s four decades of authoritarian rule to a constitutionally-
established representative government collapsed, compounding the complexity of the country’s
already diverse and atomized politics and security environment. Competing factions and
alliances, organized along local, regional, ideological, and personal lines, have jockeyed for
influence and power in post-Qadhafi Libya, at times with the backing of rival foreign
governments. For Libyans, key issues have included
the relative powers and responsibilities of local, regional, and national
government;
the weakness of national government institutions and security forces;
the role of Islam in political and social life;
the involvement in politics and security of former regime officials; and
the proper management of the country’s large energy reserves and associated
revenues.
For outside powers, key issues have included
transnational criminal and terrorist threats emanating from Libya;
the continued export of Libyan oil and natural gas;
Libya’s role as a transit country for Europe-bound refugees and migrants;
the security of Libyan weapons stockpiles; and
the country’s orientation in region-wide political competition among political
Islamists and secular authoritarians.
For a description of Libya’s political evolution over time, see Appendix A.
Libya’s Political Landscape
Some observers have described developments in Libya since mid-2014 in oversimplified terms as
a binary struggle between two opposing political-militia coalitions—1) the Tobruk-based House
of Representatives (HOR, elected in June 2014) and “Operation Dignity”/Libyan National Army
(LNA) forces and, 2) the Tripoli-based remnants of the General National Congress (GNC, elected
in July 2012) and “Libya Dawn” forces. Nevertheless, parallel ceasefire agreements among
individual members of these two groupings, and their members’ differing participation in U.N.-
sponsored peace talks during 2015, illustrated the deeper complexity of Libyan politics.
The U.N.-facilitated Libyan Political Agreement signed in Skhirat, Morocco in December 2015
brought together members of each coalition to call for the creation of a new, inclusive
Government of National Accord that would incorporate members of rival groups and post-
Qadhafi elected bodies under new institutional arrangements. Under the agreement, a GNA
Presidency Council made up of representatives from Libya’s key factions and regions is to
assume national security and economic decision making power, with the HOR retaining
legislative power in partnership with a State Council made up in part of former GNC members.3
3 The text of the agreement is available at:
[https://unsmil.unmissions.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=miXuJYkQAQg%3D&tabid=3559&mid=6187&language=fr]
Congressional Research Service
2
Libya: Transition and U.S. Policy
Since December 2015, Libyan politics have been defined in large part by the reactions and
repositioning of parties in Libya in response to the agreement and the proposed GNA, including
powerful locally-organized political councils and militia groups. The HOR accepted the GNA
agreement in principle in late January but refused to endorse the first cabinet slate proposed by
Prime Minister-designate Fayez al Sarraj. HOR members aligned with Haftar have sought an
amendment to an annex of the agreement that calls for command of the military (which the HOR
granted to General Haftar) to shift to the GNA’s Presidency Council once the agreement is
ratified. One hundred HOR members issued a statement signaling their support for the agreement
in late February 2016 while discussions between Prime Minister-designate Sarraj and HOR
leaders about the way forward continued. Nevertheless, HOR leaders have prevented the HOR
from endorsing the GNA until their concerns about leadership of security forces had been
addressed.
In western Libya, some GNC members and some militia forces formerly aligned with Libya
Dawn have signaled their support for the GNA and have stepped forward since March 2016 to
defend the limited GNA presence in Tripoli. As of mid-April, key Libyan government institutions
such as the Central Bank and the National Oil Company have recognized the authority of the
GNA’s Prime Minister-designate Fayez al Sarraj and the GNA Presidency Council, but some
GNC figures continued to question the GNA’s authority.
In this context, expert observers have re-emphasized the fractured, highly localized, and fluid
nature of Libya’s current politics and discussed the continuing influence of factors such as
religious and political ideology, personal rivalries, foreign patron relationships, financial
incentives, and local and regional identities on the reconciliation process.4 Many observers
attribute the shifts seen to date by some Libyan actors toward reconciliation (or at a minimum, a
return to mutual accommodation) to several factors. These factors include:
the inability of numerous small factions to muster sufficient force or legitimacy
to assert dominance over each other from mid-2014 onward;
the inability of rival claimants to gain access to government funds controlled by
the Central Bank or sovereign assets held overseas;
the U.N. arms embargo and the potential widening of the reach of U.N. sanctions;
and the growing threat posed to Libyans by extremist groups, especially by
supporters of the Islamic State.
The United States and other members of the U.N. Security Council have endorsed the political
agreement and recent moves by GNA leaders, but Libya’s political complexity and diversity
continue to create challenges to efforts to build consensus among Libyans on national political,
economic, or security matters. Security Council Resolution 2278, adopted on March 31, 2016,
identifies the GNA as the party of responsibility for engagement with the Security Council on
issues related to Libyan financial institutions, oil exports, and arms transfers. The resolution
further “urges Member States to assist the Government of National Accord, upon its request, by
providing it with the necessary security and capacity building assistance, in response to threats to
Libyan security and in defeating ISIL, groups that have pledged allegiance to ISIL, Ansar Al
Sharia, and other groups associated with Al-Qaida operating in Libya.”
Among Libyans, questions that relate to the future of national security decision- making in the
country under the GNA are among the most controversial. Some LNA figures have called military
4 See testimony of Fred Wehry and Claudia Gazzini before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, March 3, 2016.
Congressional Research Service
3
Libya: Transition and U.S. Policy
command issues a “red line” and warned against the incorporation of what they consider to be
militia or extremist forces into the military.5 Other LNA figures have embraced a more inclusive
approach and questioned those holding more opposing views. Meanwhile, some western Libya-
based supporters of the GNA have called for the ouster of LNA leader General Haftar and his
exclusion from a future government.
Some foreign observers have praised the role of the United Nations and other third parties in
promoting national reconciliation, but have argued that continuous efforts are needed to engage
local and regional Libyan actors with influence or direct control over security, natural resources,
infrastructure, and sources of revenue if reconciliation and stability are to be achieved. On April
17, UNSMIL announced that its personnel plan to return to Tripoli soon in support of engagement
efforts. Some European countries also have dispatched senior officials to Tripoli to meet with
GNA counterparts and have announced plans to reopen their embassies in the capital. U.S.
Special Envoy for Libya Jonathan Winer and Tunis-based U.S. Ambassador to Libya Peter
William Bodde remain engaged with Libyans and officials from concerned countries in efforts to
build domestic and international support for the GNA.
If the GNA can establish itself in this challenging context, many observers expect Libyan
authorities to face continuing resistance from a range of Islamist insurgent groups, especially the
Islamic State’s Libyan branch, which has threatened all parties in the country that reject its vision
and plans. The GNA and its international supporters also will confront sensitive questions over
the composition of Libyan security forces, efforts to combat extremist groups, and the nature and
extent of any Libyan requests for international security assistance.
Conflict and Negotiations, 2014-2015
Libyans have been immersed in chaotic conflict since May 2014, when a group of current and former military officers
led by retired General Khalifa Haftar launched a military campaign against Islamist groups; the campaign had not been
authorized by the national government that was then in power. National elections to replace the then-interim
legislature (the Tripoli-based General National Congress, GNC) were held successful y in June 2014, but some
Libyans challenged the legitimacy of the resulting body (the Tobruk-based House of Representatives, HOR). The
HOR’s critics questioned its mandate and its leaders’ embrace of Haftar’s anti-Islamist military campaign.
Some Libyans (including non-Islamist groups) saw the Haftar-led campaign as an attempt to il egitimately reassert
control of the country by former regime officials aligned with foreign countries, including Egypt and the United Arab
Emirates. The military campaign’s supporters have argued that the inability of state institutions to ensure security and
the aggressive actions of armed Islamist groups demand a forceful response. Some HOR/Haftar supporters accuse
Qatar, Turkey, and Sudan of backing their Islamist and western Libya-based adversaries. The resulting dispute led to
the emergence of two rival governments affiliated with the GNC and HOR respectively. The United States, the
United Nations, and other international parties recognized the authority of the HOR government through late 2015,
but in practice remained engaged with all parties in the pursuit of reconciliation.
After a year of bitter conflict and in the face of rising threats from Islamic State supporters and other extremists,
some Libyan leaders considered and ultimately signed onto a United Nations-facilitated reconciliation proposal in
December 2015 to establish a new interim Government of National Accord (GNA). Under the agreement, the GNA
is tasked with managing the completion of the country’s disrupted transition. The United States backed the U.N.-led
negotiation process that produced the proposal in consultation with representatives of Libya’s two rival governments,
local leaders, militia members, and other groups. The U.N. Security Council endorsed the agreement in December
2015 by adopting Resolution 2259, which called on member states to support the implementation of the agreement,
reiterated the threat of possible sanctions to spoilers, and called for member states to provide security support to
the GNA government upon request.
5 U.S. Government Open Source Center (OSC) Report IML2015071554712324, “Libyan army is ‘red line’, not part of
political negotiations, says chief,” Libya WAL News Agency (Tobruk), July 15, 2015.
Congressional Research Service
4
Libya: Transition and U.S. Policy
Table 1. Libya Map and Facts
Land Area: 1.76 mil ion sq. km. (slightly larger than Alaska); Boundaries: 4,348 km (~40% more than U.S.-Mexico
border); Coastline: 1,770 km (more than 30% longer than California coast)
Population: 6,411,776 (July 2015 est., 2013 U.N. estimated 12% were immigrants)
GDP PPP: $92.87 bil ion; annual real % change: -6.1% (2015 est.); per capita: $15,100 (2015 est.)
Budget (spending; balance): $24.85 bil ion, deficit 49.3% of GDP (2015 est.)
External Debt: $5.24 bil ion
Literacy: 91%
Oil and natural gas reserves: 48.36 bil ion barrels (2015 est.); 1.549 tril ion cubic meters (2014 est.)
Source: Graphic created by CRS. Map borders and cities generated by Hannah Fischer using data from
Department of State, 2013; Esri, 2013; and Google Maps, 2013. At-a-glance information from CIA World
Factbook.
Congressional Research Service
5
Libya: Transition and U.S. Policy
Conflict, Spending, and Low Oil Prices Raise Prospect of
Fiscal Collapse
Conflict and instability in Libya have taken a severe toll on the country’s economy and weakened
its fiscal and reserve positions since 2011. Oil and natural gas sales supply 97% of the
government’s fiscal revenue, but as of April 2016, conflict had caused oil production to plummet
to approximately 360,000 to 400,000 barrels per day out of an overall capacity of 1.6 million
barrels per day.6 At the same time, low oil prices have reduced the revenue earned from each
barrel sold, putting significant pressure on government finances. The Central Intelligence Agency
World Factbook estimates that Libya’s 2015 budget deficit was 49% of GDP.
State spending on salaries, imports, and subsidies has expanded in the post-Qadhafi period and
state payments to civilians and militia members have continued since the outbreak of conflict in
2014. Central Bank authorities have paid salaries for military and militia forces aligned with
opposing sides in the internal conflicts—even as national reserves have eroded. Bank officials are
reported to have advised political leaders in early 2016 that the drawdown rate on Libya’s
remaining liquid foreign reserves of $50 billion to $60 billion would be slowed to maintain the
ability to pay basic salaries as long as possible. Nevertheless, some observers continue to warn of
a complete budgetary collapse.
The payment of militia forces may prove particularly important in the context of ongoing efforts
to secure support for the Government of National Accord. Determining whether and how militia
forces are paid may affect their willingness to abide by terms of any agreements reached with
GNA officials. The overall security of national energy infrastructure is also an issue of concern,
as important oil infrastructure locations remain under the control of locally-organized armed
groups. Islamic State forces have targeted oil infrastructure in central and eastern Libya since
2015, raising fears that major and more lasting national economic disruptions could occur if
major sites are seized or damaged.
In March 2014, the U.N. Security Council approved third party military operations to interdict
ships named by the U.N. Libya Sanctions Committee as being suspected of carrying unauthorized
oil exports.7 In 2015, authorities in eastern Libya made preparations to sell oil produced in areas
under their control, drawing criticism from their rivals in Tripoli and other areas of the country.
With budget pressure growing during the 2014-2016 conflict, rival Libyan political actors also
struggled for control of assets held overseas by Libya’s sovereign wealth fund, the Libya
Investment Authority (LIA), with assets exceeding $60 billion. Its assets remain frozen pursuant
to U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973 (2011), as modified by Resolution 2009
(2011).
In December 2015, the International Crisis Group observed that “a key conflict driver in Libya is
the fight over control of its oil and oil wealth,” and argued that “no solution to current divisions is
possible without a preliminary deal on the management of its economic and financial resources,
and the armed groups that control them.” They further argued that “the financial situation – and
with it citizen welfare – faces collapse in the context of a deep political crisis, militia battles and
the spread of radical groups, including the Islamic State (IS). If living conditions plunge and
6 International Monetary Fund, “Arab Countries in Transition: Economic Outlook and Key Challenges” October 9,
2014; and, Sudarsan Raghavan “As oil output falls, Libya is on the verge of economic collapse,” Washington Post,
April 16, 2016.
7 Security Council Resolution 2146.
Congressional Research Service
6
Libya: Transition and U.S. Policy
militia members’ government salaries are not paid, the two governments competing for
legitimacy will both lose support, and mutiny, mob rule and chaos will take over.”8
As of April 2016, the Libyan National Oil Company and Libyan Central Bank have recognized
the authority of GNA officials. In Resolution 2278, the U.N. Security Council extended the
mandate for member states to assist in preventing oil exports that are not authorized by the GNA
through July 2017 and requested that the GNA notify the Council “as soon as it exercises sole and
effective oversight over the National Oil Corporation, the Central Bank of Libya, and the Libyan
Investment Authority.”
United Nations and United States Sanctions Measures
Prior to and fol owing the immediate outbreak of conflict in Libya in 2011, the United Nations, the United States, and
other actors adopted a range of sanctions measures intended to convince the Qadhafi government to end its military
campaign against opposition forces and civilians. The measures also sought to dissuade third parties from providing
arms or facilitating financial transactions for the benefit of Libyan combatants. United Nations Security Council
Resolution 1970 established a travel ban on Qadhafi government leaders, placed an embargo on the unauthorized
provision of arms to Libya, and froze certain Libyan state assets. In February 2011, President Barack Obama issued
Executive Order 13566, blocking the property under U.S. jurisdiction of the government of Libya, Qadhafi, his family,
and other designated individuals.
After the conclusion of the 2011 conflict, U.N. and U.S. sanctions measures were modified but remained focused on
preventing former Qadhafi government figures from accessing Libyan state funds and undermining Libya’s transition.
Asset freeze measures changed to give transitional leaders access to some state resources, but some limitations also
remained in place to ensure that funds were transparently and legitimately administered by transitional authorities.
U.S. Treasury officials issued a series of general licenses that gradually unblocked most Libyan state property and
allowed for transactions with Libyan Central Bank and Libyan National Oil Company. U.N. arms embargo provisions
were modified over time to ensure that weapons sales to Libya were authorized by the transitional government.
When fighting broke out among Libyan factions in 2014, the Security Council moved to expand the scope of its
modified sanctions provisions to allow for the targeting of actors who were contributing to the conflict. Resolution
2174, adopted in August 2014, authorized the placement of U.N. financial and travel sanctions on individuals and
entities in Libya and internationally found to be “engaging in or providing support for other acts that threaten the
peace, stability or security of Libya, or obstruct or undermine the successful completion of its political transition.”
Resolution 2213, adopted in March 2015, expanded the scope of sanctionable activities related to the standard
articulated in Resolution 2174.
As of April 2016, sanctions provisions of U.N. Resolutions 1970, 2174, and 2213 remain in force. Resolutions 2259
and 2278 call on Member States to recognize and support the Government of National Accord and to comply with
Security Council efforts to enforce asset freeze, travel ban, and arms embargo measures.
On April 19, 2016, the United States modified the scope of the national emergency declared in Executive Order
13566 based on the president’s finding that
“the ongoing violence in Libya, including attacks by armed groups against Libyan state facilities, foreign missions in
Libya, and critical infrastructure, as well as human rights abuses, violations of the arms embargo imposed by
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1970 (2011), and misappropriation of Libya's natural resources
threaten the peace, security, stability, sovereignty, democratic transition, and territorial integrity of Libya and
thereby constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United
States.”
Under the modified executive order, property under U.S. jurisdiction may be blocked and entry to the United States
may be prohibited for individuals and entities found to be engaging or to have engaged in a range of actions, including
threatening the peace, stability, or security of Libya and obstructing, undermining, delaying, or impeding the adoption
of or transfer of power to a Government of National Accord or successor government.
8 International Crisis Group, “The Prize: Fighting for Libya’s Energy Wealth,” Middle East and North Africa Report
N°165, December 3, 2015.
Congressional Research Service
7
Libya: Transition and U.S. Policy
The Islamic State Threat
The presence and strengthening of Islamic State supporters in Libya have become matters of deep
concern among Libyans and the international community. By some estimates, the conflict in Syria
has drawn thousands of young Libyan men since 2012, and some observers link the rise of IS-
affiliated groups in Libya to the return of some of those Libyan fighters from Syria in 2014.9 U.S.
military officials estimated the group’s strength at approximately 3,500 fighters in late 2015, but
in early 2016, senior U.S. officials estimated that figure had grown to as many as 6,000, among a
much larger community of Libyan Salafi-jihadist activists and militia members. On February 9,
CIA Director John Brennan told the Select Senate Committee on Intelligence that,
We see Libya as the most important theatre for ISIL outside of the Syria-Iraq theatre,
they have several thousand members there, they have absorbed some of the groups inside
of Libya, including Ansar al Sharia that was very active prior to ISIL’s rise. Libya has
been a place where this form of extremism and terrorism has grown up over the years. As
the borders of the Syria-Iraq area were being tightened down, we know that some of
those foreign fighters started to divert into Libya. And so Libya has become a magnet for
individuals not only inside of Libya but from the African continent as well as from
outside. So it is a real issue, a real problem, but we see ISIL in Libya as a very, very
important hub for ISIL activities.
IS supporters have announced three affiliated wilayah (provinces) corresponding to Libya’s three
historic regions—Wilayat Tripolitania in the west, Wilayat Barqa in the east, and Wilayat Fezzan
in the southwest. Since late 2014, IS supporters have taken control of Muammar al Qadhafi’s
hometown—the central coastal city of Sirte—and they have grappled with western and eastern
Libyan forces in attempts to expand their territory. Clashes with groups to the east have damaged
vital national oil infrastructure, and as of April 2016, IS fighters continue to press for control over
national oil assets in the area.
As in other countries, IS supporters in Libya have clashed with local armed groups—including
Islamists—that do not share their beliefs or recognize the authority of IS leader and self-styled
caliph, Abu Bakr al Baghdadi. IS backers sought to impose their control on the city of Darnah in
far eastern Libya, but were forced from the town by a coalition of other Islamists. In Benghazi, IS
supporters have been besieged and defeated in several areas of the city by various LNA-affiliated
forces.
Overall, IS supporters continue to face a backlash from hostile tribal groups, local militia, and
other Islamists, suggesting that the group, like its secular rivals, may struggle to achieve nation-
wide dominance in Libya’s fractured political scene. In April 2016, U.S. Africa Command
Commander General David Rodriguez said in a Pentagon press briefing that “In Benghazi and
Derna, (Libyan armed groups) have fought back against the Islamic State and made it much
tougher for them to operate, as well as in Sabratha. They are contesting the growth of ISIS in
several areas across Libya.”10
Ansar al Sharia and other Armed Islamist Groups
Armed Islamist groups in Libya occupy a spectrum that reflects differences in ideology as well as
their members’ underlying personal, familial, tribal, and regional loyalties. Since the 1990s, the
9 Frederic Wehrey and Ala’ Alrababa’h, “Rising Out of Chaos: The Islamic State in Libya,” Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, March 5, 2015.
10 Department of Defense Briefing by Gen. David M. Rodriguez, Commander, U.S. AFRICOM, April 7, 2016.
Congressional Research Service
8
Libya: Transition and U.S. Policy
epicenters of Islamist militant activity in Libya have largely been in the eastern part of the
country, with communities like the coastal town of Darnah and some areas of Benghazi, the east’s
largest city, coming under the de facto control of armed Salafi-jihadist groups in different periods
since 2011. Some Islamists whose armed activism predates the 2011 revolution, such as members
of the Darnah-based Abu Salim Martyrs Brigade, have formed new coalitions to pursue their
interests in the wake of the revolution.
The emergence of the Ansar al Sharia organization in 2012 demonstrated the appeal of
transnationally-minded Salafist-jihadist ideology in Libya, and the group persisted alongside
other Islamist and secular militia groups in the Benghazi Revolutionaries’ Shura Council (BRSC)
in battling LNA-forces for control of Benghazi through late 2015. In 2014, the U.S. State
Department announced the designation of Ansar al Sharia in Benghazi and Ansar al Sharia in
Darnah as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) under Section 219 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act and as Specially Designated Global Terrorist entities under Executive Order
13224.11 Ansar al Sharia has vigorously condemned the military operations against it by Haftar-
aligned forces as a “war against the religion and Islam backed by the West and their Arab
allies.”12
The relationship between supporters of the Islamic State organization and members of Ansar al
Sharia and other Salafist-jihadist groups once seen as aligned with Al Qaeda is unclear, with some
observers suggesting that the Islamic State could seek to recruit from Islamist militias that are
defeated by other rivals or excluded from national security arrangements under a GNA deal.
In southwestern Libya, Islamist extremist operatives reportedly are active, and may be using
remote areas to serve as safe havens or transit areas for operations in neighboring Niger and
Algeria. This includes Al Murabitoun, a group that State Department described in April 2015 as
“one of the greatest near-term threats to U.S. and international interests in the Sahel, because of
its publicly stated intent to attack Westerners and proven ability to organize complex attacks.”13
The June 2015 airstrike in eastern Libya targeted Al Murabitoun leader Mokhtar Belmokhtar,
who also led the group responsible for the January 2013 attack on the natural gas facility at In
Amenas, Algeria, in which three Americans were killed. His death in the June 2015 strike has not
yet been confirmed, and local allies have denied he was killed.
In recent years, Congress has required the Administration to submit various reports and strategy
documents related to efforts to combat terrorist groups in North Africa and the Middle East.
Section 1278 of the FY2015 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA, P.L. 113-291) required
the Secretary of Defense to submit to congressional committees “a strategy to counter the
growing threat posed by radical Islamist terrorist groups in North Africa, West Africa, and the
Sahel.” Section 1222 of the FY2016 NDAA (P.L. 114-92) required the Secretary of Defense and
the Secretary of State to jointly submit “a strategy for the Middle East and to counter violent
extremism.” Section 704 of Division M of the FY2016 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L.
114-113) requires the submission within 180 days of enactment of a report “on United States
11 Terrorist Designations of Three Ansar al-Shari'a Organizations and Leaders, January 10, 2014. The State Department
said that the groups: “have been involved in terrorist attacks against civilian targets, frequent assassinations, and
attempted assassinations of security officials and political actors in eastern Libya, and the September 11, 2012 attacks
against the U.S. Special Mission and Annex in Benghazi, Libya. Members of both organizations continue to pose a
threat to U.S. interests in Libya.”
12 OSC Report TRN2014052021537855, “Libya: Ansar al-Sharia Vows To Defend Benghazi Against Attacks…” May
19, 2014.
13 State Department Bureau of Counterterrorism, Country Reports on Terrorism 2014, Chapter 6, April 2015.
Congressional Research Service
9
Libya: Transition and U.S. Policy
counterterrorism strategy to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat the Islamic State, al-Qa’ida, and their
affiliated groups, associated groups, and adherents.”
Migration and Trafficking in Persons
Conflict and weak governance have transformed Libya into a major staging area for the transit of
migrants seeking to reach Europe and have encouraged increasing outflows of migrants since
mid-2014. Libya is a haven for criminal groups and trafficking networks that seek to exploit such
migrants. Data collected by migration observers and immigration officials suggests that many
migrants from sub-Saharan Africa transit remote areas of southwestern and southeastern Libya to
reach coastal urban areas where onward transit to Europe is organized. Others, including Syrians,
enter Libya from neighboring Arab states seeking onward transit to refuge in Europe.
A patchwork of Libyan local and national authorities and nongovernmental entities assume
responsibility for responding to various elements of the migrant crisis, including the provision of
humanitarian assistance and medical care, the patrol of coastal and maritime areas, and law
enforcement efforts targeting migrant transport networks. Violence and insecurity in Libya
complicates international attempts to assist Libyan partners in these efforts and to improve
coordination among Libyan stakeholders. Reports suggest that many migrants transiting Libya are
subject to difficult living conditions, their human rights are frequently violated, and they remain
vulnerable to violence at the hands of armed groups, smugglers, and interim authorities. UNHCR
is also concerned about those displaced inside the country due to fighting and its inability to
register and assist refugees and asylum seekers.
The State Department’s 2015 Trafficking in Persons report placed Libya on the Tier 3 list, saying
that the Libyan government “does not fully comply with the minimum standards for the
elimination of trafficking and is not making significant efforts to do so.” It further states that the
government “lacked the institutional capacity and resources to prevent human trafficking, and it
did not display the political will to prioritize such efforts.” According to the report, “Libya is a
destination and transit country for men and women from sub-Saharan Africa and Asia subjected
to forced labor and forced prostitution. Migrants seeking employment in Libya as laborers or
domestic workers or who transit Libya en route to Europe are vulnerable to trafficking.” The
report notes that “large-scale violence driven by militias, civil unrest, and increased lawlessness”
limits the availability of accurate information on human trafficking in the country.
In May 2015, the European Union decided to create a naval force (EUNAVFOR Med) “to break
the business model of smugglers and traffickers… in the Southern Central Mediterranean and in
partnership with Libyan authorities.”14 The force was inaugurated in June 2015 and is now
operational. In October 2015, the U.N. Security Council adopted Resolution 2240, conditionally
authorizing member states to inspect and seize vessels on the high seas off the coast of Libya
suspected of involvement in migrant smuggling or human trafficking. As of March 2016, 24 EU
member states supported the Rome-based EU mission, which had completed at least 55 rescue
operations and, as of February 2016, had saved an estimated 9,600 lives at sea.15
Concern about migrant attempts to cross the Mediterranean Sea from Libya have grown since the
European Union reached an agreement with Turkey in March 2016 to restrict passage from
Turkey to Greece. The International Organization for Migration (IOM) reported in late March that
14 Council of the European Union, Decision (CFSP) 2015/778, May 18, 2015. The force was inaugurated in June.
15 EUNAVFOR, More than 450 migrants rescued during the weekend by EUNAVFOR MED operation Sophia,
February 22, 2016.
Congressional Research Service
10
Libya: Transition and U.S. Policy
arrivals to Italy by sea in 2016 were roughly 10% of arrivals to Greece by sea over the same
period and that among arrivals the number of Syrians arriving to Italy had not yet increased.16 In
April 2016, UNSMIL security advisor Italian General Paolo Serra reportedly said that the number
of migrants seeking to enter Italy from Libya could double to 250,000 this year, echoing
statements of concern made by European Union officials. 17
Figure 1. Migration and Refugee Routes to Libya, 2014-2015
Source: Frontex, New York Times. Published in, “What’s Behind the Surge in Refugees Crossing the
Mediterranean Sea?” New York Times, May 21, 2015.
U.S. Policy, Assistance, and Military Action
Terrorist organizations in Libya and the weakness and fractious nature of Libya’s national
security institutions pose a dual risk to U.S. and international security. U.S. policy initiatives to
address both these challenges are evolving, with some implementation efforts underway. On
February 2, the United States and other members of the Small Group of the Global Coalition to
Counter ISIL released a statement saying, “We follow with concern the growing influence of
ISIL/Da’esh in Libya, will continue to monitor closely developments there, and stand ready to
support the Government of National Accord in its efforts to establish peace and security for the
Libyan people.”18 U.S. officials have arguably placed increased emphasis on the urgency of
16 IOM, “Mediterranean Migrant Arrivals in 2016: 164,752; Deaths: 531,” March 29, 2016.
17 ANSAmed, “Libya: 250,000 migrants heading to Italy, UN military advisor,” April 13, 2016.
18 Statement by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Small Group of the Global Coalition to Counter ISIL, February
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
11
Libya: Transition and U.S. Policy
forming a GNA so that the new government can formally request U.S. and other assistance and
lend some political legitimacy to foreign military intervention, which many Libyans either oppose
or about which they harbor reservations. In March and April 2016, GNA figures downplayed the
likelihood of foreign military intervention and suggested that any such requests might not be
immediately forthcoming.
U.N. Security Council Resolutions 2259 and 2278 endorse U.N.-facilitated plans for a
Government of National Accord to complete the country’s transition to a permanent
representative government and reaffirm the Council’s prior recognition of “the need to combat by
all means, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and international law, including
applicable international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law, threats to international
peace and security caused by terrorist acts, including those committed by groups proclaiming
allegiance to ISIL in Libya.”19 Both resolutions urge Member States to assist the GNA in
responding to threats to Libyan security and to provide support in its fight against the Islamic
State and other extremist groups upon its request.
The GNA’s establishment in Tripoli has been facilitated by security arrangements negotiated with
Libyan militias in part by UNSMIL security advisor General Paolo Serra of Italy. The United
Kingdom and Italy reportedly have discussed sending military personnel to Libya for training
purposes if requested, but officials in both countries have ruled out unilateral combat operations
and emphasized the need for a formal GNA request.20 According to U.S. Special Operations
Command-Africa (SOCAF) commander Brig. Gen. Donald Bolduc, a “Coalition Coordination
Center” has been established in Rome to plan and coordinate joint security efforts in Libya.21
Counterterrorism Policy and Security Sector Assistance
Statements made by U.S. officials in 2016 suggest that U.S. security concerns about the Islamic
State Libya presence have intensified, and U.S. military action against IS targets might proceed
even if political consensus among Libyans remains elusive. U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM)
has geographic responsibility for Libya, its North African neighbors, and adjoining Sahel
countries. U.S. defense officials have said that containing instability in Libya is one of five broad
lines of effort identified in AFRICOM’s five-year plans. They also referenced more specific short
and medium term plans to contain and degrade the Islamic State.
In January 2016, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Joseph Dunford said “it’s fair to
say that we’re looking to take decisive military action against ISIL in conjunction with the
political process” in Libya, and, “The president has made clear that we have the authority to use
military force.” President Obama has stated his view that the 2001 Authorization for the Use of
Military Force is applicable to the Islamic State organization. A U.S. air strike reportedly killed a
top IS commander in eastern Libya in November 2015, and a U.S. air strike on IS forces in the
western Libya town of Sabratha reportedly killed dozens of suspected fighters in February 2016.
Many of those killed in the latter strike reportedly were Tunisians. In early 2016, U.S. Defense
(...continued)
2, 2016.
19 Resolution 2259.
20 Ben Farmer, “No MPs vote on Libya troops mission says Hammond,” The Telegraph (UK), April 18, 2016; and,
Jamie Dettmer, “Europeans Ponder Security Mission for Libya as Fighting Wracks Tripoli,” Voice of America, April
18, 2016.
21 Trofimov, “Libya Will Need American Help to Defeat Islamic State, General Says,” Wall Street Journal, February
29, 2016.
Congressional Research Service
12
Libya: Transition and U.S. Policy
Department officials stated that “there have been some U.S. forces in Libya trying to establish
contact with forces on the ground so that we get a clear picture of what’s happening there.”22
A senior U.S. military officer testified in July 2015 that “Should diplomatic efforts to form a unity
government succeed, I believe the U.S. should be prepared to revisit security assistance programs
for legitimate Libyan security services.”23 AFRICOM has signaled its readiness to provide such
assistance if conditions allow and has stated its intention to “work with partners to improve our
overall effectiveness in containing the spillover effects of Libyan insecurity; preventing the
movement of terrorist fighters, facilitators, and weapons into Libya; and simultaneously
disrupting the violent extremist networks within.”24 U.S. Brigadier General Bolduc said in
February 2016 that U.S. partners in Libya,
need our advice and assistance. They need our training and a certain amount of equipping
in order to be successful.... The capability and the willingness is not the issue. It’s a
collective decision by the Libyans on what they want. That is hugely important. You’ve
got to go in there to achieve their objectives and their goals.25
State Department and Defense Department plans to develop a Libyan General Purpose Force to
serve as the nucleus of new national security forces were shelved as conflict broke out among
Libyans in 2014. Nascent U.S. and European efforts to provide organizational assistance and
training to Libyan security ministry personnel prior to the U.S. withdrawal reportedly were
hindered by security conditions in Libya and complicated by requirements to address Libyans’
concerns about proportional local and regional representation in training efforts. Some Libyan
recruits sent to the United Kingdom and Jordan for training also were involved in security
incidents in those countries that have raised questions about the viability of external security
training programs for Libyan personnel.
The U.S. Defense Department has requested $125 million in FY2017 Counterterrorism
Partnerships Fund (CTPF) monies for programs in the Sahel/Maghreb region that may benefit
Libyan entities or address threats emanating from Libya through partnership with governments in
neighboring countries. Tunisia has received significant amounts of security assistance from the
United States in recent years, in part to meet threats posed by Libya-based groups.26
22 Department of Defense Press Briefing by Pentagon Press Secretary Peter Cook, January 27, 2016.
23 Testimony of U.S. Air Force General Paul Selva before the Senate Armed Services Committee, July 14, 2015.
24 Gen. David Rodriguez, United States Africa Command 2015 Posture Statement, March 2015. Gen. Rodriguez’s
posture statement further says that “As conditions improve in Libya, we will be ready to support the development of
Libyan defense institutions and forces.”
25 Yaroslav Trofimov, “Libya Will Need American Help to Defeat Islamic State, General Says,” Wall Street Journal,
February 29, 2016.
26 See CRS In Focus IF10358, Tunisia, by Alexis Arieff and Carla E. Humud and CRS Report RS21666, Political
Transition in Tunisia, by Alexis Arieff and Carla E. Humud.
Congressional Research Service
13
Libya: Transition and U.S. Policy
Investigations into 2012 Attacks on U.S. Facilities and Personnel in Benghazi
U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and three other U.S. personnel were kil ed on September 11, 2012,
during an assault by armed terrorists on two U.S facilities in Benghazi, Libya’s second-largest city. The Federal Bureau
of Investigation (FBI) remains the lead U.S. agency tasked with pursuing the individuals responsible for the attacks.
Other government agencies, including the State Department, the Department of Defense (DOD), and elements of the
intelligence community (IC), support the FBI’s efforts to bring the attackers to justice. Section 1278 of the FY2015
National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 113-291) required the Secretary of Defense to submit to congressional
defense committees—within 30 days of enactment—
“a report that contains an assessment of the actions taken by the Department of Defense and other Federal agencies
to identify, locate, and bring to justice those persons and organizations that planned, authorized, or committed the
attacks against the United States facilities in Benghazi, Libya that occurred on September 11 and 12, 2012, and the
legal authorities available for such purposes.”
On September 28, 2012, the U.S. intelligence community concluded publicly that the incident was a “deliberate and
organized terrorist attack carried out by extremists,” and said that at the time it remained “unclear if any group or
person exercised overall command and control of the attack and if extremist group leaders directed their members
to participate. However, we do assess that some of those involved were linked to groups affiliated with, or
sympathetic to Al Qaeda.”27 In January 2014, a Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report on the attacks stated
that, “Individuals affiliated with terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), Ansar al Sharia, Al
Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula [AQAP], and the Mohammad Jamal Network, participated in the September 11, 2012,
attacks.”28 In June 2014, U.S. forces apprehended Ahmed Abu Khattala, a Libyan suspect in the attack, in a military
operation in Libya. Abu Khattala has been transferred to the United States, and, as of November 2015, preparations
for his trial were ongoing. The U.S. government has offered up to $10 mil ion through the State Department’s
Rewards for Justice program for information that helps to apprehend and prosecute those responsible for the attack.
Prior to Abu Khattala’s capture, U.S. military officials referred to continuing intelligence gaps in Libya in unclassified
testimony before Congress, with U.S. AFRICOM Commander General David Rodriguez saying on April 8, 2014, that
continuing U.S. efforts against the network responsible for the Benghazi attacks are “made more difficult, obviously,
by the security situation.”29 Rodriguez added that at the time U.S. investigators did not “have everybody identified and
located,” and said that the feasibility of operations to apprehend or otherwise target suspects in Libya “depends . . on
the situation and the risk that people want to take.” Security conditions in the country have deteriorated further
since that time, and U.S. Embassy personnel have departed, with unknown implications for support of similar
operations.
Administration officials have repeatedly described Libya as a high risk operational environment, even with regard to
routine diplomatic operations in Tripoli, which were suspended in July 2014. Operational risks presumably are higher
in areas of Libya that are control ed by anti-U.S. forces. The September 2015 U.S. State Department travel warning
for Libya “warns U.S. citizens against all travel to Libya and recommends that U.S. citizens currently in Libya depart
immediately.” Across Libya, attacks on foreign diplomatic facilities and personnel and on foreign nationals have
continued, and reports suggest the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli and related facilities were damaged by fighting in 2014.
Foreign Assistance Programs
From 2011 through 2014, U.S. engagement in Libya shifted from immediate conflict-related
humanitarian assistance to focus on transition assistance and security sector support. More than
$25 million in USAID-administered programs funded through the Office of Transition Initiatives,
regional accounts, and reprogrammed funds were identified between 2011 and 2014 to support
the activities of Libyan civil society groups and provide technical assistance to Libya’s nascent
electoral administration bodies.
27 Statement, Director of Public Affairs for the Director of National Intelligence Shawn Turner, September 28, 2012.
28 Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Review of the Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Facilities in Benghazi, Libya,
September 11-12, 2012, January 15, 2014.
29 Deputy Assistant Secretary Amanda Dory and General David Rodriguez, Press Briefing, April 8, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
14
link to page 19 link to page 19 Libya: Transition and U.S. Policy
The security-related withdrawal of some U.S. personnel from Libya in the wake of the 2012
Benghazi attacks temporarily affected the implementation and oversight of U.S.-funded transition
assistance programs. U.S. security assistance programs also were disrupted, but some assistance
programs were reinstated by late 2013. The 2014 withdrawal of U.S. personnel from the country
closed the initial chapter of direct post-Qadhafi engagement, but U.S. personnel have remained
engaged through liaison programs administered from outside the country. As of early 2016, the
State Department has withdrawn U.S. diplomatic personnel from Libya, and the Obama
Administration has not publicly described a timetable for their return.30 Limited U.S. assistance
programs are implemented by personnel based in neighboring countries, and at the USAID
Middle East Regional Platform office in Frankfurt, Germany.
In spite of these challenges, Obama Administration officials have remained committed to
providing transition support to Libyans as possible, and the Administration requested $20 million
in foreign operations funding for Libya programming in FY2016 (see Table 2). Of the funds
requested for FY2016, $10 million in Economic Support Fund monies would support governance
and civil society programs, and $10 million split among security assistance accounts would
support assessment of and engagement with Libyan security forces. The FY2016 Consolidated
Appropriations Act (P.L. 114-113, Division K, Section 7041[f]) states that “not less than
$20,000,000 shall be made available for assistance for Libya for programs to strengthen
governing institutions and civil society, improve border security, and promote democracy and
stability in Libya, and for activities to address the humanitarian needs of the people of Libya.”
For FY2017, the Administration is seeking $20.5 million in State Department administered
bilateral assistance (see Table 2 below). According to the request,
U.S. programs are designed, in coordination with the international community, to support
Libyan government and civil society efforts to establish a democratic, representative
political system; strengthen the capacity of critical Libyan institutions to deliver services;
secure Libya’s territory; and build an effective and civilian-led national security system.
In recent years, Congress has enacted appropriations language requiring the Administration to
certify Libyan cooperation with efforts to investigate the 2012 Benghazi attacks and to submit
detailed spending and vetting plans in order to obligate appropriated funds.31 As of March 2016,
required certifications had been submitted for FY2015 funding. Congress also has prohibited the
provision of U.S. assistance to Libya for infrastructure projects “except on a loan basis with terms
favorable to the United States.” In February 2016, the Administration notified Congress of its
intent to obligate $5 million in FY2015 funding to support the continuation of USAID’s Office of
Transition Initiatives programs for Libya in conjunction with the ongoing consideration of the
GNA agreement. In April 2016, the United States pledged $2 million to a United Nations
Stabilization Facility for Libya.32
30 Administration officials have referred to the withdrawal of U.S. Embassy personnel from Libya as temporary. The
implications of armed groups’ reported infiltration of an evacuated U.S. facility in Tripoli for any future return of
diplomatic personnel remain to be seen.
31 In the FY2014, FY2015, and FY2016 Consolidated Appropriations Acts (P.L. 113-76, Division K, Section 7041[f];
P.L. 113-235, Division J, Section 7041[f]; and P.L. 114-113, Division K, Section 7041[f]), Congress placed conditions
on the provision of funds appropriated by those acts to the central government of Libya.
32 UNSMIL, “UNDP Libya launches a the Stabilization Facility Plan for Libya during the senior officials meeting in
Tunisia,” April 12, 2016.
Congressional Research Service
15
link to page 19 link to page 19 Libya: Transition and U.S. Policy
Table 2. U.S. Foreign Assistance and Libya-Related Program Funding
(millions of dollars)
FY2015
FY2016
FY2017
Account
Actual
Allocations
Request
Economic Support Fund (ESF)
5a
10
15
International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE)
1
2
1
Nonproliferation, Antiterrorism, Demining and Related Programs
(NADR)
3.5
6.5
4.5
International Military Education and Training (IMET)
-
1.5
-
Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund–Sahel/Maghreb (CTPF-DOD)b
113
105
125
Source: State Department and Defense Department budget request and notification documents FY2015-
FY2017; and, Explanatory Statement for Division K of P.L. 114-113, the FY2016 Consolidated Appropriations
Act.
Notes: Amounts are subject to change. Funds from centrally managed programs, including the Middle East
Partnership Initiative (MEPI), Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL) Office of Global
Programming, and USAID Office of Transition Initiatives may also benefit Libya. State and USAID may also
program resources from the Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA) and International Disaster Assistance
(IDA) humanitarian accounts in Libya. Middle East Regional programs using ESF monies are not included.
a. Notified to Congress in February 2016 to support Libyan Transition Initiative program.
b. Programs funded under this initiative may not be designed to address Libya-specific concerns.
Outlook and Issues for Congress
Libyans’ divisive political competition, growing terrorist threats, and, since mid-2014, outright
conflict between rival groups have prevented U.S. officials from developing robust partnerships
and assistance programs in post-Qadhafi Libya. The shared desire of the U.S. government and
other international actors to empower Libyan state security forces has been confounded by the
strength of armed non-state groups, weak institutions, and a fundamental lack of political
consensus among Libya’s interim leaders, especially regarding security issues.
The 2012 attacks in Benghazi, the deaths of U.S. personnel, the emergence of terrorist threats on
Libyan soil, and the internecine conflict between Libyan militias have reshaped debates in
Washington about U.S. policy toward Libya. Following intense congressional debate over the
merits of U.S. and NATO military intervention in Libya in 2011, many Members of Congress
welcomed the announcement of Libya’s liberation, the formation of the interim Transitional
National Council government, and the July 2012 national General National Congress election,
while expressing concern about security in the country, the proliferation of weapons, and the
prospects for a smooth political transition. The breakdown of the transition process in 2014 and
the outbreak of conflict amplified these concerns, with the subsequent emergence and
strengthening of Islamic State supporters in Libya compounding congressional fears about the
implications of continued instability in the country.
Prior to the escalation of conflict in May 2014, some Libyans had questioned the then-interim
government’s decision to seek foreign support for security reform and transition guidance, while
some U.S. observers had questioned Libya’s need for U.S. foreign assistance given its oil
resources and relative wealth. During subsequent fighting, some Libyans have vigorously rejected
others’ calls for international support and assistance and traded accusations of disloyalty and
treason in response to reports of partnership with foreign forces. These dynamics raise questions
about the potential viability of the partnership approach favored by the Obama Administration
Congressional Research Service
16
Libya: Transition and U.S. Policy
and some in Congress, which seeks to build Libyan capacity, coordinate international action, and
leverage Libyan financial resources to meet shared objectives and minimize the need for direct
U.S. involvement.
In some cases where the United States government has desired Libyan government action on
priority issues, especially in the counterterrorism sector, U.S. officials continue to weigh choices
over whether U.S. assistance can build sufficient Libyan capacity quickly and cheaply enough,
whether interim leaders are appropriate or reliable partners for the United States, and whether
threats to U.S. interests require immediate, direct U.S. action.
The legacies of the 2014-2015 conflict and political intrigue within any reconstituted national
security institutions that may emerge from current political negotiations might amplify these
questions and complicate U.S. partnership with Libyans further. As noted above, the U.S. military
has conducted operations against terrorist targets in Libya, with reported notification of Libyan
authorities but limited apparent involvement by them. The risk remains that Libyan rivals may
seek to exploit support and/or intervention by the United States and other third parties to advance
their individual agendas.
Prior to mid-2014, the Obama Administration and Congress reached a degree of consensus
regarding limited security and transition support programs in Libya, some of which responded to
specific U.S. security concerns about unsecured weapons, terrorist safe havens, and border
security. Given that U.S. military involvement in Libya may deepen in 2016 to combat the
Islamic State and potentially to provide support to the national security forces of an emergent
Government of National Accord, Congress may choose to reexamine the basic terms of any
proposed U.S.-Libyan cooperation. In the meantime, Congress also may choose to conduct
oversight of ongoing U.S. diplomacy and assistance programs or examine criteria for the potential
resumption of U.S. diplomatic operations in Libya.
The failure of U.N.-led Libyan reconciliation efforts would present U.S. decision-makers with
hard choices about how best to mitigate threats emanating from the country in the continuing
absence of a viable, legitimate national government. Immediate questions before the United
States and other members of the U.N. Security Council include whether and how to use existing
sanctions resolutions against parties seen as obstructing progress toward a GNA agreement and
whether or how to intervene militarily against the Islamic State.
If conflict among Libyans persists, congressional debate over transition and security assistance
programs in Libya may intensify, with advocates possibly arguing for new investment on behalf
of some Libyans to prevent a broader state collapse and critics possibly arguing that a lack of
political consensus among Libyans might make U.S. assistance unlikely to achieve intended
objectives. In the interim, Members of Congress may engage Administration officials to
determine the possible scope and content of U.S. programs that might be proposed to support any
Libyan Government of National Accord, and any U.S. contingency planning for the possibility
that negotiations among Libyans could fail to bring conflict to a prompt close.
Congressional Research Service
17
Libya: Transition and U.S. Policy
Appendix A. Libyan History, Civil War, and
Political Change
The North African territory that now composes Libya has a long history as a center of Phoenician,
Carthaginian, Greek, Roman, Berber, and Arab civilizations. Modern Libya is a union of three
historically distinct regions—northwestern Tripolitania, northeastern Cyrenaica or Barqa, and the
more remote southwestern desert region of Fezzan. In the 19th century, the Ottoman Empire
struggled to assert control over Libya’s coastal cities and interior. Italy invaded Libya in 1911 on
the pretext of liberating the region from Ottoman control. The Italians subsequently became
mired in decades of colonial abuses against the Libyan people and faced a persistent anti-colonial
insurgency. Libya was an important battleground in the North Africa campaign of the Second
World War and emerged from the fighting as a ward of the Allied powers and the United Nations.
On December 24, 1951, the United Kingdom of Libya became one of Africa’s first independent
states. With U.N. supervision and assistance, a Libyan National Constituent Assembly drafted and
agreed to a constitution establishing a federal system of government with central authority vested
in King Idris Al Sanussi. Legislative authority was vested in a Prime Minister, a Council of
Ministers, and a bicameral legislature. The first parliamentary election was held in February
1952, one month after independence. The king banned political parties shortly after
independence, and Libya’s first decade was characterized by continuous infighting over taxation,
development, and constitutional powers.
In 1963, King Idris replaced the federal system of government with a unitary monarchy that
further centralized royal authority, in part to streamline the development of the country’s newly
discovered oil resources. Prior to the discovery of marketable oil in 1959, the Libyan government
was largely dependent on economic aid and technical assistance it received from international
institutions and through military basing agreements with the United States and United Kingdom.
The U.S.-operated air base at Wheelus field outside of Tripoli served as an important Strategic
Air Command base and center for military intelligence operations throughout the 1950s and
1960s. Oil wealth brought rapid economic growth and greater financial independence to Libya in
the 1960s, but the weakness of national institutions and Libyan elites’ growing identification with
the pan-Arab socialist ideology of Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser contributed to the gradual
marginalization of the monarchy. Popular criticism of U.S. and British basing agreements grew,
becoming amplified in the wake of Israel’s defeat of Arab forces in the 1967 Six Day War. King
Idris left the country in mid-1969 for medical reasons, setting the stage for a military coup in
September, led by a young, devoted Nasserite army captain named Muammar al Qadhafi.
The United States did not actively oppose the coup, as Qadhafi and his co-conspirators initially
presented an anti-Soviet and reformist platform. Qadhafi focused intensely on securing the
immediate and full withdrawal of British and U.S. forces from military bases in Libya, which was
complete by mid-1970. The new government also pressured U.S. and other foreign oil companies
to renegotiate oil production contracts, and some British and U.S. oil operations eventually were
nationalized. In the early 1970s, Qadhafi and his allies gradually reversed their stance on their
initially icy relationship with the Soviet Union and extended Libyan support to revolutionary,
anti-Western, and anti-Israeli movements across Africa, Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. These
policies contributed to a rapid souring of U.S.-Libyan political relations that persisted for decades
and was marked by multiple military confrontations, state-sponsored acts of Libyan terrorism
against U.S. nationals, covert U.S. support for Libyan opposition groups, Qadhafi’s pursuit of
weapons of mass destruction, and U.S. and international sanctions.
Congressional Research Service
18
Libya: Transition and U.S. Policy
Qadhafi’s policy reversals on WMD and terrorism led to the lifting of international sanctions in
2003 and 2004, followed by economic liberalization, oil sales, and foreign investment that
brought new wealth to some Libyans. After U.S. sanctions were lifted, the U.S. business
community gradually reengaged amid continuing U.S.-Libyan tension over terrorism concerns
that were finally resolved in 2008. During this period of international reengagement, political
change in Libya remained elusive. Government reconciliation with imprisoned Islamist militants
and the return of some exiled opposition figures were welcomed by some observers as signs that
suppression of political opposition had softened. The Qadhafi government released dozens of
former members of the Al Qaeda-affiliated Libyan Islamist Fighting Group (LIFG) and the
Muslim Brotherhood from prison in the years prior to the revolution as part of its political
reconciliation program. The Bush Administration praised Qadhafi’s cooperation with U.S.
counterterrorism efforts against Al Qaeda and the LIFG.
Qadhafi’s international rehabilitation coincided with new steps by some pragmatic government
officials to maneuver within so-called “red lines” and propose minor reforms. However, the
shifting course of those red lines increasingly entangled would-be reformers in the run-up to the
outbreak of unrest in February 2011. Ultimately, inaction on the part of the government in
response to calls for guarantees of basic political rights and for the drafting of a constitution
suggested a lack of consensus, if not outright opposition to meaningful change among hardliners.
This inaction set the political stage for the revolution that overturned Qadhafi’s four decades of
rule and led to his grisly demise in October 2011.
Political change in neighboring Tunisia and Egypt helped bring long-simmering Libyan reform
debates to the boiling point in January and early February 2011. The 2011 revolution was
triggered in mid-February by a chain of events in Benghazi and other eastern cities that quickly
spiraled out of Qadhafi’s control. The government’s loss of control in these cities became
apparent, and broader unrest emerged in other regions. A number of military officers, their units,
and civilian officials abandoned Qadhafi. Qadhafi and his supporters denounced their opponents
as drug-fueled traitors, foreign agents, and Al Qaeda supporters. Until August 2011, Qadhafi and
his forces maintained control over the capital, Tripoli, and other western cities. The cumulative
effects of attrition by NATO airstrikes against military targets and a coordinated offensive by
rebels in Tripoli and from across western Libya then turned the tide, sending Qadhafi and his
supporters into retreat and exile. September and early October 2011 were marked by sporadic and
often intense fighting in and around Qadhafi’s birthplace, Sirte, and the town of Bani Walid and
neighboring military districts. NATO air operations continued as rebel fighters engaged in battles
of attrition with Qadhafi supporters.
Qadhafi’s death at the hands of rebel fighters in Sirte on October 20, 2011, brought the revolt to
an abrupt close, with some observers expressing concern that a dark chapter in Libyan history
ended violently, leaving an uncertain path ahead. The self-appointed interim Transitional National
Council (TNC) and its cabinet took initial steps toward improving security and reforming national
institutions. Voters elected an interim General National Congress (GNC) in July 2012. The GNC
assumed power on August 8, 2012, but failed to demobilize militia groups, reconstitute national
bureaucracies, or launch ambitious economic or political reforms.
The unravelling of Libya’s post-Qadhafi transition intensified in late 2013, as a campaign of
unsolved assassinations targeting security officers swept the country’s second-largest city,
Benghazi; a militia force briefly kidnapped then-Prime Minister Ali Zeidan; militias killed
protesting civilians in Tripoli and Benghazi; and rival coalitions within the General National
Congress (GNC, elected July 2012) clashed over the future of Zeidan’s government and the
GNC’s mandate and term of office. Zeidan survived numerous attempted no confidence votes
during his tenure (November 2012 to March 2014), which was marked by a series of crises
Congressional Research Service
19
Libya: Transition and U.S. Policy
stemming from militia demands for the political isolation of Qadhafi-era officials, militias’
seizure of oil infrastructure, and the strengthening of armed Islamists in the east and south.
Long-expected elections for a Constitutional Drafting Assembly were delayed until February
2014, and were ultimately marred by relatively low turnout and violence that prevented voters in
some areas from selecting delegates. In late March 2014, a coalition of Islamist and independent
forces in the GNC garnered enough votes to oust Zeidan amid a growing boycott by other GNC
members that made it difficult for the body to operate with a politically viable quorum. Under
increasing pressure to leave office, GNC members voted to replace the GNC with a new 200-
member House of Representatives (HOR), to which legislative authority would be transferred.
Public and intra-General National Congress tensions were driven in part by differences of opinion
over the future roles and responsibilities of armed militias, the relative influence of powerful local
communities over national affairs, and the terms governing the political exclusion of individuals
who had formerly served in official positions during the Qadhafi era. Disagreements between
Islamist politicians and relatively secular figures also contributed to the gradual collapse of
consensus over the transition’s direction. These groups differed over some domestic legal and
social developments as well as Libya’s security relationships with foreign governments.
Gradually, an unspoken code under which Libyans sought to refrain from shedding other Libyans’
blood in the wake of Qadhafi’s ouster deteriorated under pressure from a series of violent
confrontations between civilians and militias, clashes between rival ethnic groups, and the blatant
targeting of security officers by an unidentified, but ruthless network in Benghazi. That code was
rooted in shared respect for the sacrifices of anti-Qadhafi revolutionaries and in shared fears that
the 2011 predictions of Muammar al Qadhafi and his supporters would come true: that Qadhafi’s
downfall would be followed by uncontainable civil strife and chaos.33
In May 2014, forces loyal to Qadhafi-era retired general Khalifah Haftar launched an armed
campaign unauthorized by interim authorities dubbed “Operation Dignity” to evict Islamist
militia groups from eastern Libya. Haftar capitalized on widely shared presumptions that certain
armed Islamist groups were responsible for the assassination of security officers and were
cooperating with foreign jihadists, including Al Qaeda, its regional affiliates, and Syria-based
armed groups. More controversially, Haftar broadened his rhetoric and objectives to include
pledges to cleanse Libya of Islamists, including supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood.
In the months that followed, Libya was drawn deeper into a region-wide struggle between pro-
and anti-Islamist forces, with the governments of Egypt and the United Arab Emirates offering
Haftar support. Haftar’s actions and those of his opponents have helped to push many of the
country’s latent tensions to the surface and contributed to Libya’s polarization on ideological and
community lines. This polarization was visible during a summer 2014 political struggle between
supporters of Prime Minister Abdullah Al Thinni and the leading coalition of Islamists and
33 For example, Sayf al Islam al Qadhafi, who remains in detention in Libya and is sought for arrest by the International
Criminal Court, said in a February 2011 television statement: “Libya, unlike Tunisia and Egypt, is about tribes, clans,
and alliances. Libya does not have a civil society or political parties. Libya is made up of tribes that know their areas,
allies, and people. …If secession or a civil war or a sedition occurs …do you think the Libyans will be able to reach an
agreement on how to share oil within a week, a month, or even two or three years? If your answer is yes, then you are
mistaken. … My brothers, we are tribes, and we will resort to arms to settle the matter since arms are available to
everyone now. Instead of mourning the death of 84 people, we will mourn the death of hundreds of thousands of
people. Rivers of blood will run through Libya and you will flee. There will be no oil supplies, the foreign companies,
foreigners, and oil companies will leave tomorrow, and the distribution of oil will come to an end…” U.S. Government
Open Source Center (OSC) Report FEA20110221014695, “Libya: Al-Qadhafi’s Son Addresses Citizens; Warns of
Civil War, ‘Colonization,’” Al Jamahiriya Television (Tripoli), February 20, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
20
Libya: Transition and U.S. Policy
independents within the GNC, which sought to replace Al Thinni prior to the June 2014 elections
for the new HOR.
Haftar’s armed extremist military opponents and his relatively more moderate political
adversaries responded vigorously to his challenges. Through late 2014, the Operation Dignity
military campaign had suffered several setbacks on the battlefield at the hands of the U.S.
designated Foreign Terrorist Organization Ansar al Sharia (AAS) and that group’s allies in an
emergent coalition known as the Benghazi Revolutionaries’ Shura Council. Haftar’s forces
counterattacked, attempting to force their way back into Benghazi but failing to overcome
determined resistance until making progress in early 2016. Large areas of the city have been
damaged in the fighting and UNSMIL has reported mass displacement among the population of
the city. Residents who have remained have reported shortages of supplies and critical service
interruptions.
In western Libya, fighting also erupted in mid-2014 along political, ideological, and community
lines with two coalitions of forces battling for control of Tripoli’s international airport,
government facilities, other strategic infrastructure, and areas around the capital. Tensions
between locally organized militia groups in the west predated the launch of Haftar’s operations in
the east. Over time, however, fighting and rhetoric in the two theaters became more interrelated
and overlaid local rivalries, with some western-based forces endorsing and offering material
support to Haftar’s campaign and the HOR and others mobilizing to isolate Haftar’s erstwhile
allies and/or the HOR.
Specifically, some armed groups from the city of Misrata and smaller Islamist militias formed a
coalition known as Fajr Libya (Libya Dawn) and launched a multi-pronged offensive in July
2014 to take control of Tripoli’s main international airport. Participants have included Libya’s
Central Shield Force, members of the Tripoli-based Libya Revolutionaries Operations Room
(LROR), the Knights of Janzour Brigade, militias from Zawiya, and several Misrata-based
militias, including the Marsa and Hatin Brigades. The international airport had long been held by
a rival coalition of militias largely from Zintan—the Sawa’iq and Qaaqaa Brigades, and the
Martyr Mohammed Madani Brigade—who opposed the GNC-leading Islamist-independent
coalition during its final months in office. Libya Dawn operations after the fall of the airport
included clashes with militias in Tripoli’s Suq al Jumah neighborhood and militias affiliated with
the Warshafanah tribe south and west of the city.
Control over lucrative national infrastructure remained a subtext of fighting in the region, which
became less intense during 2015 as localized ceasefire agreements were reached. The United
Nations-facilitated dialogue process that led to the 2015 Government of National Accord
agreement built in part on improvements in security conditions and trust that accompanied de-
escalation in fighting between members of the Libya Dawn and Operation Dignity coalitions.
Congressional Research Service
21
Libya: Transition and U.S. Policy
Appendix B. U.S. Assistance to Libya FY2010-FY2015
Table B-1. U.S. Assistance to Libya FY2010-FY2015
(thousands of dollars, by account/program and fiscal year of appropriation unless noted)
FY2014
FY2015
Account/Program
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
FY2013
Actual
Request
Complex Crises Fund (CCF-OCO)
15,000
-
-
Foreign Military Financing (FMF)
150
-
150
949
-
-
International Military Education and Training (IMET)
319
-
296
142
1,461
1,500
USAID Transition Initiatives (TI/TI-OCO)
-
4,000
1,500
4,825
-
-
Department of Defense (DOD) Nonlethal Support
25,000
-
-
-
-
-
DOD Counterterrorism Fellowship Program
-
-
-
30
-
-
Section 1206 Train and Equip
8,420
Global Security Contingency Fund
-
-
22,650
-
-
-
International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement
-
-
-
-
1,500
1,000
Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI)
3,530
3,145
NA
NA
TBD
TBD
Middle East Response Fund (MERF)
-
25,615
-
-
-
-
Democracy Fund
-
600
-
-
-
-
Development Assistance
-
470
-
-
-
-
Economic Support Fund (ESF)
-
-
-
-
-
-
ESF-Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO)
-
-
3,000
5,000
-
-
ESF-USAID Middle East Regional Programs
-
175
-
2,850
TBD
9,500
Nonproliferation, Antiterrorism, Demining and Related
Programs (NADR)
2,100
1,437
2,940
3,500
Anti-Terrorism Assistance (ATA)
-
-
-
-
-
-
Export Control and Related Border Security Assistance (EXBS)
-
500
-
-
-
-
Counterterrorism Engagement (CTE)
95
-
-
-
-
-
Conventional Weapons Reduction (CWD)
-
5,750
-
-
-
-
Global Threat Reduction (CTR)
500
-
-
-
-
-
Nonproliferation Disarmament Fund (NDF)
-
34,300
-
-
-
-
Regional Strategic Initiative (RSI)
-
9
-
-
-
-
Humanitarian Funding
Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance (ERMA)
-
25,000
-
-
-
-
International Disaster Assistance (OFDA)
-
13,300
-
-
-
-
International Disaster Assistance (FFP)
-
15,700
-
-
-
-
Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA)
-
35,000
8,800
-
-
-
Estimated Total (subject to change)
29,594
163,564
38,496
38,653
5,901
15,500
Sources: U.S. Department of State communication to CRS, June 2012; State Department congressional budget
justification and notification documents. Amounts subject to change. Estimated totals may not reflect all funds.
Congressional Research Service
22
Libya: Transition and U.S. Policy
Note: NA = Not Available, TBD = To Be Determined. NDF funds reprogrammed from multiple fiscal years—
FY2003, FY2004, FY2009, and FY2010.
Author Contact Information
Christopher M. Blanchard
Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs
cblanchard@crs.loc.gov, 7-0428
Congressional Research Service
23