North Africa

The Libyan committee is meeting in London. Britain is pulling the strings at the Security Council, whilst tensions between the US and the EU are complicating matters

As the United Nations mission draws to a close, the current approach is to create illusions and manage interests. The competition for Libya’s energy sector remains a key factor in understanding international initiatives, alongside the country’s proximity to European markets

by Reda Shaaban

28 October 2026

Aggiungi Il Sole 24 Ore
ai preferiti su Google

Massad Boulos, consigliere del presidente statunitense Donald Trump Foto AP/Julia Demaree Nikhinson

4' min read

Translated by AI

Versione italiana

Key points

The challenges facing the 4+4 committee
London’s role in Libya
Massad Boulos’s initiative
Reda Shaaban, a writer specialising in Libyan affairs

4' min read

Translated by AI

Versione italiana

Whilst certain Libyan committees are raising their voices to divert the Libyan people’s attention away from the country’s future and towards secondary issues, invoking national sovereignty and the fight against foreign interference, whilst fuelling divisions to create imaginary battles against those who hope for lasting stability in Libya, for fear that the region might descend into chaos, the Libyan 4+4 Committee is meeting in London under the auspices of the United Nations mission. The aim is to finalise the conclusions of its work and seek British support to enable the implementation of the US plan in Libya by 31 October and before the US presidential elections.

The challenges facing the 4+4 committee

The committee meeting in London represents a pivotal moment in the international competition to manage the crisis, far removed from the expectations of the Libyan people. The decision to host the meeting reveals London’s previous stance regarding the American initiative led by Massad Boulos, an adviser to US President Donald Trump, which coincides with the conclusions of the committee set up with the involvement of the mission. It also raises questions about Britain’s willingness to accept this initiative, or whether it is attempting to steer its course in order to preserve its traditional role in managing the Libyan dossier within the Security Council.

One of the main issues with the approach taken by the 4+4 Committee concerns the nature of the political representation on which it is based. The committee brings together representatives from the two camps in the east and west, which are effectively linked to the centres of power and influence centred on the Haftar family in the east and the government of Abdul Hamid Dbeibah in the west. It therefore does not reflect the full political, social and military diversity of Libya, nor does it guarantee that parties, civil society groups and other stakeholders have balanced representation in shaping the country’s future.

The importance of this meeting in London is further heightened as the mandate of the United Nations Support Mission in Libya draws to a close, scheduled for 31 October 2026, and in light of international assessments and the potential differences of opinion amongst the permanent members of the Security Council surrounding its renewal. The renewal is, in fact, linked to the nature of the role the mission will play in the next phase and the limits of its action, against a backdrop of divergent positions between the United States, Europe, Russia and China.

London’s role in Libya

The British position regarding the American initiatives and the outcome of the mission’s work can be understood by considering London’s role within the Security Council, where it is the country responsible for drafting texts on the Libyan dossier – the so-called ‘penholder’. This function gives it a central role in preparing draft resolutions and formulating texts relating to the issue, as well as in defining political compromises and in approving or supporting them.

For some time now, the speed of direct and unilateral American initiatives has tested the limits of British influence. This is what prompted the British ambassador to Libya, Martin Reynolds, to speak out in an article published in the newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat on 22 May 2026, in which he emphasised the importance of a United Nations-led approach, of strengthening international commitment to support the mission’s efforts, of achieving convergence on a political solution, and of abandoning unilateral initiatives.

The article also contained implicit political messages, including the need to collaborate with the various sections of Libyan society, to combat networks generating illicit proceeds, migrant smuggling and human trafficking, and to limit migration flows. These dossiers reflect a significant part of British and European interests in Libya: indeed, a political solution cannot be separated from security in the Mediterranean, immigration control, the protection of economic interests and the fight against cross-border illicit activities. These messages can be interpreted as a reaffirmation of the need to keep the political process under the auspices of the United Nations and under British supervision.

Massad Boulos’s initiative

According to some interpretations, the US initiative entrusted to Massad Boulos aims to consolidate an agreement between the dominant forces on the ground in the East and West and to establish a transitional executive authority lasting two years, limiting the solution to two controversial parties. Added to this would be the use of the United Nations mission to achieve American objectives, utilising its various tools to influence the situation in Libya: ranging from direct relations with local actors to economic and security interests linked to the energy sector and the strategic position of Libya in the Mediterranean and North Africa.

This interpretation also links the initiative to the desire of the Trump administration to achieve a political breakthrough that can be presented as a success for US foreign policy, in addition to the economic opportunities that might arise for American companies operating in the energy sector. This takes on particular significance in the context of changes relating to sanctions against Russia and Iran and developments concerning the Venezuelan energy sector.

Competition for Libya’s energy sector remains a key factor in understanding international initiatives, alongside the country’s proximity to European markets. Insisting on the imposition of political arrangements that fail to take account of security conditions and local divisions could also lead to the conflict resurfacing in new forms, threatening European interests and security.

This situation becomes even more delicate in light of the differences between the United States and Europe on various other economic and security issues, and the US President’s stance towards the European Union: factors that make Libya a crossroads of competing interests and a battleground for influence.