SWP

Die bilateralen Bündnisse der USA mit Japan und Südkorea bilden das Fundament der Sicherheitsarchitektur im Indo-Pazifik. Die Stärke dieser Bündnisbeziehungen ist damit von weitreichender Bedeutung für die Stabilität und Sicherheit der gesamten Region.

In den letzten Jahren standen beide Bündnisse vor großen Belastungs­proben. Unter dem ehemaligen US-Präsidenten Donald Trump verschärften sich laufende Debatten über die finanzielle und verteidigungs­politische Lastenteilung. Sicherheitspolitische Entwicklungen im Indo-Pazifik – vor allem Chinas machtpolitischer Aufstieg und Nordkoreas militärische Aufrüstung – haben zudem neue Fragen nach Zusammenarbeit und Koordination aufgeworfen.

Die Bündnisse haben sich angesichts dieser grundlegenden sicherheits­politischen Veränderungen als bemerkenswert stabil erwiesen. Ihre zu­neh­mende Fokussierung auf die Bedrohungen durch China und Nord­korea birgt indes Risiken für den allianzinternen Zusammenhalt. Denn obwohl Washington, Tokio und Seoul strategische Sichtweisen und Ziele gegenüber diesen beiden Ländern im Wesentlichen teilen, gibt es teils erhebliche Differenzen mit Blick auf die Prioritätensetzungen und die Wahl der Mittel.

Die trilaterale sicherheits- und verteidigungspolitische Zusammenarbeit der USA mit Japan und Südkorea wird vor allem durch das historisch be­lastete Verhältnis der beiden asiatischen Länder erschwert. Für Washing­ton gewinnen stattdessen plurilaterale Formate wie die »Quad« an Bedeutung, an der sich Südkorea jedoch nicht beteiligt.

Die Bündnisse genießen in den drei Hauptstädten eine breite innen­politische Unterstützung. Während der Präsidentschaft Trumps galt dies für beide Parteien im US-Kongress. Der neue US-Präsident Joseph Biden hat die Stärkung der sicherheitspolitischen Allianzen, auch in Asien, zu einem zentralen Ziel seiner Administration erklärt.

Die bilateralen Bündnisse der USA mit Japan und Südkorea bilden das Fundament der Sicherheitsarchitektur im Indo-Pazifik. Die Stärke dieser Bündnisbeziehungen ist damit von weitreichender Bedeutung für die Stabilität und Sicherheit der gesamten Region.

In den letzten Jahren standen beide Bündnisse vor großen Belastungs­proben. Unter dem ehemaligen US-Präsidenten Donald Trump verschärften sich laufende Debatten über die finanzielle und verteidigungs­politische Lastenteilung. Sicherheitspolitische Entwicklungen im Indo-Pazifik – vor allem Chinas machtpolitischer Aufstieg und Nordkoreas militärische Aufrüstung – haben zudem neue Fragen nach Zusammenarbeit und Koordination aufgeworfen.

Die Bündnisse haben sich angesichts dieser grundlegenden sicherheits­politischen Veränderungen als bemerkenswert stabil erwiesen. Ihre zu­neh­mende Fokussierung auf die Bedrohungen durch China und Nord­korea birgt indes Risiken für den allianzinternen Zusammenhalt. Denn obwohl Washington, Tokio und Seoul strategische Sichtweisen und Ziele gegenüber diesen beiden Ländern im Wesentlichen teilen, gibt es teils erhebliche Differenzen mit Blick auf die Prioritätensetzungen und die Wahl der Mittel.

Die trilaterale sicherheits- und verteidigungspolitische Zusammenarbeit der USA mit Japan und Südkorea wird vor allem durch das historisch be­lastete Verhältnis der beiden asiatischen Länder erschwert. Für Washing­ton gewinnen stattdessen plurilaterale Formate wie die »Quad« an Bedeutung, an der sich Südkorea jedoch nicht beteiligt.

Die Bündnisse genießen in den drei Hauptstädten eine breite innen­politische Unterstützung. Während der Präsidentschaft Trumps galt dies für beide Parteien im US-Kongress. Der neue US-Präsident Joseph Biden hat die Stärkung der sicherheitspolitischen Allianzen, auch in Asien, zu einem zentralen Ziel seiner Administration erklärt.

A conflict over water escalated at the end of April into the most serious border clashes between Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan since independence in 1991. By 1 May, 36 deaths had been reported on the Kyrgyz and 16 on the Tajik side, with more than two hundred injured and dozens of homes destroyed.

This was not the first outbreak of armed violence in the contested territories of the Ferghana valley, whose densely populated oases depend on scarce water sources for irrigation. The administrative boundaries in this multi-ethnic area were drawn during Soviet times and have been disputed ever since. When the former Soviet republics of Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan gained independence in 1991, delimitation of what were now international borders became a major issue and is still the subject of negotiations. Almost half of the 970-kilometre Tajik-Kyrgyz border remains contested, with large sections neither demarcated nor controlled by border posts. It is here, in the mountains between Batken in Kyrgyzstan and Isfara in Tajikistan, that the most recent violence occurred. Although Kyrgyz and Tajiks have coexisted for generations here, population growth and increasing scarcity of arable land and water have raised tensions, resulting in occasional violence between inhabitants of the border zone.

This time, the bone of contention was the installation by Tajik workers of a surveillance camera at a joint water supply station situated on Kyrgyz territory, to monitor the distribution of water between the two sides. The distribution is governed by bilateral agreements, but the Tajiks apparently believed that the Kyrgyz were exceeding their allocation. While Kyrgyzstan had earlier installed its own camera at that water station, the Tajik move was perceived as a provocation and a Kyrgyz local official, accompanied by law enforcement and an angry crowd, demanded the removal of the Tajik camera. The situation quickly escalated to involve more than a hundred participants on each side – including border guards using hunting rifles, handguns and by some accounts even light military weapons, including mortars. A similar but much smaller incident occurred in September 2019, and clashes claiming lives on both sides have become frequent over the past decade. The drivers of violence are mostly economic in nature, revolving around the distribution of local resources and natural endowments. A truce was agreed on the evening of 29 April and eventually stopped the fighting which had spread further to border villages as far as 70 kilometres from the initial incident.

While each side blames the other for starting it, the violence does not seem to have happened by accident. In February 2021, amidst fresh complaints about Tajiks illegally using land belonging to Kyrgyzstan, Kyrgyz activists demanded that the newly elected President Sapar Japarov – who advocates nationalist and populist positions – take up the border issue. Shortly afterwards, in late March, Kamchybek Tashiev, the Chairman of Kyrgyzstan’s State Committee for National Security proposed an exchange of territory involving the densely populated Tajik exclave of Vorukh. The offer was castigated by former Tajik foreign minister Hamroxon Zarifi, with officials and commentators on both sides insulting each other on social media and other outlets. A few days later, Kyrgyzstan held military exercises in its Batken region, involving as much as 2,000 soldiers, 100 tanks and armored personnel carriers; around 20 units of self-propelled artillery were also involved in the drill. On 9 April, Tajik President Emomali Rahmon paid a demonstrative visit to Vorukh and declared that exchanging the exclave for contiguous territory was out of the question.

Given this background of tensions, a heightened state of alert and military deployment on the Tajik side of the border would be expected in response to the Kyrgyz land swap proposal and the subsequent military exercise. It certainly testifies to deeply entrenched mistrust on the Tajik side. The same mistrust and suspicion characterise the Kyrgyz narrative that the recent incident was planned and that the Tajik president is heading for war with Kyrgyzstan in order to distract his nation from the ever worsening economic situation.

The two sides have now announced that they will negotiate the demarcation of a 112 kilometre section of the border, although the details remain unclear. Given the conflicting interests and strong emotions attached to the border issue, new clashes can flare up at any time. External actors have little influence and, as things stand, a lasting solution is a remote prospect. Efforts should therefore concentrate on confidence-building along two axes: humanitarian engagement involving NGOs and Kyrgyz and Tajik communities in the border areas, and strengthening existing early warning mechanisms to help the two governments prevent future escalations. The conflict early warning framework of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) could be employed in coordination with the two governments. The EU and UN could also contribute by training local officials in conflict resolution and crisis response. Local police should have rapid response teams ready to intervene to stop local clashes. Last but not least, the United Nations in particular should work towards resolving the underlying water resource conflict, by helping establish a “fair” distribution accepted by both sides.

This text was also published at fairobserver.com.

A conflict over water escalated at the end of April into the most serious border clashes between Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan since independence in 1991. By 1 May, 36 deaths had been reported on the Kyrgyz and 16 on the Tajik side, with more than two hundred injured and dozens of homes destroyed.

This was not the first outbreak of armed violence in the contested territories of the Ferghana valley, whose densely populated oases depend on scarce water sources for irrigation. The administrative boundaries in this multi-ethnic area were drawn during Soviet times and have been disputed ever since. When the former Soviet republics of Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan gained independence in 1991, delimitation of what were now international borders became a major issue, and has been the subject of negotiations ever since. Almost half of the 970-kilometre Tajik-Kyrgyz border remains contested, with large sections neither demarcated nor controlled by border posts. It is here, in the mountains between Batken in Kyrgyzstan and Isfara in Tajikistan, that the most recent violence occurred. Although Kyrgyz and Tajiks have coexisted for generations here, population growth and increasing scarcity of arable land and water have raised tensions, resulting in occasional violence between inhabitants of the border zone.

This time, the bone of contention was the installation by Tajik workers of a surveillance camera at a joint water supply station situated on Kyrgyz territory, to monitor the distribution of water between the two sides. The distribution is governed by bilateral agreements, but the Tajiks apparently believed that the Kyrgyz were exceeding their allocation. While Kyrgyzstan had earlier installed its own camera at that water station, the Tajik move was perceived as a provocation and a Kyrgyz local official, accompanied by law enforcement and an angry crowd, demanded the removal of the Tajik camera. The situation quickly escalated to involve more than a hundred participants on each side – including border guards using hunting rifles, handguns and by some accounts even light military weapons, including mortars. A similar but much smaller incident occurred in September 2019, and clashes claiming lives on both sides have become frequent over the past decade. The drivers of violence are mostly economic in nature, revolving around the distribution of local resources and natural endowments. A truce was agreed on the evening of 29 April and eventually stopped the fighting which had spread further to border villages as far as 70 kilometres from the initial incident.

While each side blames the other for starting it, the violence does not seem to have happened by accident. In February 2021, amidst fresh complaints about Tajiks illegally using land belonging to Kyrgyzstan, Kyrgyz activists demanded that the newly elected President Sapar Japarov – who advocates nationalist and populist positions – take up the border issue. Shortly afterwards, in late March, Kamchybek Tashiev, the Chairman of Kyrgyzstan’s State Committee for National Security proposed an exchange of territory involving the densely populated Tajik exclave of Vorukh. The offer was castigated by former Tajik foreign minister Hamroxon Zarifi, with officials and commentators on both sides insulting each other on social media and other outlets. A few days later, Kyrgyzstan held military exercises in its Batken region, involving as much as 2,000 soldiers, 100 tanks and armored personnel carriers; around 20 units of self-propelled artillery were also involved in the drill. On 9 April, Tajik President Emomali Rahmon paid a demonstrative visit to Vorukh and declared that exchanging the exclave for contiguous territory was out of the question.

Given this background of tensions, a heightened state of alert and military deployment on the Tajik side of the border would be expected in response to the Kyrgyz land swap proposal and the subsequent military exercise. It certainly testifies to deeply entrenched mistrust on the Tajik side. The same mistrust and suspicion characterise the Kyrgyz narrative that the recent incident was planned and that the Tajik president is heading for war with Kyrgyzstan in order to distract his nation from the ever worsening economic situation.

The two sides have now announced that they will negotiate the demarcation of a 112 kilometre section of the border, although the details remain unclear. Given the conflicting interests and strong emotions attached to the border issue, new clashes can flare up at any time. External actors have little influence and, as things stand, a lasting solution is a remote prospect. Efforts should therefore concentrate on confidence-building along two axes: humanitarian engagement involving NGOs and Kyrgyz and Tajik communities in the border areas, and strengthening existing early warning mechanisms to help the two governments prevent future escalations. The conflict early warning framework of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) could be employed in coordination with the two governments. The EU and UN could also contribute by training local officials in conflict resolution and crisis response. Local police should have rapid response teams ready to intervene to stop local clashes. Last but not least, the United Nations in particular should work towards resolving the underlying water resource conflict, by helping establish a “fair” distribution accepted by both sides.

From the perspective of policymakers, planning for the many uncertainties that the future brings is a complicated task. Because of the growing complexity of global affairs, more and more information is destined to land on the desks of decision makers. State-of-the-art futures analysis structures information about conceivable events and developments, thus supporting more effective and legitimate anticipatory governance. Forecasting and foresight, the dominant analytical approaches, serve different political functions. Forecasting geopolitical events is primarily relevant for the execu­tive branch, which must act on short-term assessments. Foresight scenarios, on the other hand, significantly contribute to deliberations on the desirability of plausible mid- to long-term developments in consultative bodies such as parliaments. Both approaches should be utilized in EU policymaking.

From the perspective of policymakers, planning for the many uncertainties that the future brings is a complicated task. Because of the growing complexity of global affairs, more and more information is destined to land on the desks of decision makers. State-of-the-art futures analysis structures information about conceivable events and developments, thus supporting more effective and legitimate anticipatory governance. Forecasting and foresight, the dominant analytical approaches, serve different political functions. Forecasting geopolitical events is primarily relevant for the execu­tive branch, which must act on short-term assessments. Foresight scenarios, on the other hand, significantly contribute to deliberations on the desirability of plausible mid- to long-term developments in consultative bodies such as parliaments. Both approaches should be utilized in EU policymaking.

Die tschechische Regierung kündigte am 17. April an, sie werde 18 Mitarbeiter der russischen Botschaft in der Tschechischen Republik zur Ausreise auffordern. Prag wirft Moskau vor, russische Agenten seien verantwortlich für zwei Explosionen in einem Munitionslager im osttschechischen Vrbětice, die sich 2014 ereigneten. Russ­land reagierte mit der Ausweisung von 20 Botschaftsmitarbeitern, woraufhin Prag verkündete, das russische Botschaftspersonal weiter zu reduzieren. Auch hat Russ­land wohl kaum noch Chancen, beim geplanten Ausbau des Atomkraftwerks Dukovany zum Zug zu kommen. Angesichts des tiefsten bilateralen Zerwürfnisses mit Russland seit 1989 (bzw. seit der Unabhängigkeit des Landes 1993) wirbt die Tschechische Re­pub­lik nun um die Unterstützung der Verbündeten in Nato und EU. Deutschland sollte den Umgang mit Russland sowie das Thema hybride Bedrohungen zu einem sicht­baren Element des Dialogs mit Prag machen.

Die tschechische Regierung kündigte am 17. April an, sie werde 18 Mitarbeiter der russischen Botschaft in der Tschechischen Republik zur Ausreise auffordern. Prag wirft Moskau vor, russische Agenten seien verantwortlich für zwei Explosionen in einem Munitionslager im osttschechischen Vrbětice, die sich 2014 ereigneten. Russ­land reagierte mit der Ausweisung von 20 Botschaftsmitarbeitern, woraufhin Prag verkündete, das russische Botschaftspersonal weiter zu reduzieren. Auch hat Russ­land wohl kaum noch Chancen, beim geplanten Ausbau des Atomkraftwerks Dukovany zum Zug zu kommen. Angesichts des tiefsten bilateralen Zerwürfnisses mit Russland seit 1989 (bzw. seit der Unabhängigkeit des Landes 1993) wirbt die Tschechische Re­pub­lik nun um die Unterstützung der Verbündeten in Nato und EU. Deutschland sollte den Umgang mit Russland sowie das Thema hybride Bedrohungen zu einem sicht­baren Element des Dialogs mit Prag machen.

Am 17. März 2021 ist Tansanias Präsident John Pombe Magufuli unerwartet verstorben. Unter seiner Nachfolgerin Samia Suluhu Hassan, der bisherigen Vizepräsidentin, steht das Land vor wichtigen Richtungsentscheidungen. Ihre ersten Tage im Amt hat sie genutzt, um politische Änderungen einzuleiten. Zum einen nimmt sie Covid-19 ernst, anders als ihr Vorgänger; ein Expertenkomitee soll den Umgang des Landes mit der Pandemie überprüfen. Zum anderen werden Einschränkungen von Presse- und Meinungsfreiheit aufgehoben. Ob die neue Präsidentin ein eigenes Profil entwickeln kann und Tansania so auch regional wie international wieder an Bedeutung gewinnt, ist zwar noch offen. Doch die Zeichen stehen auf Wandel.

Am 17. März 2021 ist Tansanias Präsident John Pombe Magufuli unerwartet verstorben. Unter seiner Nachfolgerin Samia Suluhu Hassan, der bisherigen Vizepräsidentin, steht das Land vor wichtigen Richtungsentscheidungen. Ihre ersten Tage im Amt hat sie genutzt, um politische Änderungen einzuleiten. Zum einen nimmt sie Covid-19 ernst, anders als ihr Vorgänger; ein Expertenkomitee soll den Umgang des Landes mit der Pandemie überprüfen. Zum anderen werden Einschränkungen von Presse- und Meinungsfreiheit aufgehoben. Ob die neue Präsidentin ein eigenes Profil entwickeln kann und Tansania so auch regional wie international wieder an Bedeutung gewinnt, ist zwar noch offen. Doch die Zeichen stehen auf Wandel.

The Nord Stream 2 project presents the German government with the dilemma of choosing between energy and foreign policy interests. Geopolitical arguments often prevail in the political discourse. Yet, a weighing of priorities requires a look at the energy policy context, too. When it comes to balancing interests, there are no easy or “cheap” answers. With a focus on the energy context, it has to be emphasized that a cooperative approach toward energy transformation promises the greatest dividend for a balance of interests, but it presupposes a minimum consensus within the Euro­pean Union (EU), along with the United States (US), Ukraine, and Russia.

The Nord Stream 2 project presents the German government with the dilemma of choosing between energy and foreign policy interests. Geopolitical arguments often prevail in the political discourse. Yet, a weighing of priorities requires a look at the energy policy context, too. When it comes to balancing interests, there are no easy or “cheap” answers. With a focus on the energy context, it has to be emphasized that a cooperative approach toward energy transformation promises the greatest dividend for a balance of interests, but it presupposes a minimum consensus within the Euro­pean Union (EU), along with the United States (US), Ukraine, and Russia.

Under the narrative of “Global Britain”, the United Kingdom (UK) aims to position itself after Brexit as an independent leading power with global reach. The Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy, published in March 2021, seeks to implement this goal. By making the G7 and COP26 presidencies in 2021 a success and by increasing its defence spending, London wants to show what Global Britain means in practice, while also convincing the new US administration of its stra­tegic value. With regard to the European Union (EU), however, the Johnson govern­ment rejects institutionalised cooperation in foreign and security policy and prefers flexible formats with individual EU states. This presents Germany with a dilemma: On the one hand, it wants to involve London in European foreign and security policy, but on the other hand, this involvement must not be at the expense of the EU and European unity. In view of the currently strained EU-UK relationship, institutional­ised cooperation only seems possible in the long term. In the medium term, the focus should be on informal bilateral and multilateral formats.

Under the narrative of “Global Britain”, the United Kingdom (UK) aims to position itself after Brexit as an independent leading power with global reach. The Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy, published in March 2021, seeks to implement this goal. By making the G7 and COP26 presidencies in 2021 a success and by increasing its defence spending, London wants to show what Global Britain means in practice, while also convincing the new US administration of its stra­tegic value. With regard to the European Union (EU), however, the Johnson govern­ment rejects institutionalised cooperation in foreign and security policy and prefers flexible formats with individual EU states. This presents Germany with a dilemma: On the one hand, it wants to involve London in European foreign and security policy, but on the other hand, this involvement must not be at the expense of the EU and European unity. In view of the currently strained EU-UK relationship, institutional­ised cooperation only seems possible in the long term. In the medium term, the focus should be on informal bilateral and multilateral formats.

Nach dem Brexit will das Vereinigte Königreich (VK) sich unter dem Leitmotiv »Global Britain« als eigenständige Führungsmacht mit globaler Reichweite positionieren. Das unterstreicht die Integrated Review vom 16. März 2021. Praktisch wird dieser Anspruch sichtbar in dem ambitionierten Programm für den dies­jährigen Vorsitz der G7 und der Klima­konfe­renz COP26 sowie erhöhten Verteidigungs­ausga­ben. Damit will London auch die neue US-Administration von seinem stra­te­gi­schen Wert überzeugen. Eine institutionalisierte Zu­sam­menarbeit mit der Europäischen Union (EU) in der Außen- und Sicherheits­politik lehnt die Regierung von Boris Johnson hin­gegen ab; stattdessen setzt sie auf flexible For­mate mit einzelnen EU-Staa­ten. Das stellt Deutsch­land vor einen Ziel­konflikt: Einer­seits will es London in euro­pä­ische Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik ein­binden, anderer­seits darf dies nicht auf Kosten der EU und europäischer Geschlos­sen­heit gehen. Angesichts der aktuell belasteten Bezie­hungen zwischen der EU und dem VK scheint eine institu­tio­na­lisierte Kooperation erst lang­fristig möglich. Mittel­fristig sollte der Fokus auf infor­mellen bi- und multi­lateralen Formaten liegen.

Nach dem Brexit will das Vereinigte Königreich (VK) sich unter dem Leitmotiv »Global Britain« als eigenständige Führungsmacht mit globaler Reichweite positionieren. Das unterstreicht die Integrated Review vom 16. März 2021. Praktisch wird dieser Anspruch sichtbar in dem ambitionierten Programm für den dies­jährigen Vorsitz der G7 und der Klima­konfe­renz COP26 sowie erhöhten Verteidigungs­ausga­ben. Damit will London auch die neue US-Administration von seinem stra­te­gi­schen Wert überzeugen. Eine institutionalisierte Zu­sam­menarbeit mit der Europäischen Union (EU) in der Außen- und Sicherheits­politik lehnt die Regierung von Boris Johnson hin­gegen ab; stattdessen setzt sie auf flexible For­mate mit einzelnen EU-Staa­ten. Das stellt Deutsch­land vor einen Ziel­konflikt: Einer­seits will es London in euro­pä­ische Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik ein­binden, anderer­seits darf dies nicht auf Kosten der EU und europäischer Geschlos­sen­heit gehen. Angesichts der aktuell belasteten Bezie­hungen zwischen der EU und dem VK scheint eine institu­tio­na­lisierte Kooperation erst lang­fristig möglich. Mittel­fristig sollte der Fokus auf infor­mellen bi- und multi­lateralen Formaten liegen.

The relationship between India and Western countries is increasingly characterised by a paradox. On the one hand, the country’s rise has caused both sides to increasingly share geostrategic interests, for example in the Indo-Pacific. On the other hand, dif­ferences are growing as New Delhi’s domestic policy moves further and further from Western ideals – this applies to economic policy as well as the state of Indian democ­racy. This change is affecting India’s relations with Germany and Europe as the pro­motion of Indian industry and the restriction of democratic rights also affect Euro­pean companies and civil society organisations respectively. The narrative of a part­nership with India based on shared values, which has been cultivated for decades in Europe and the USA, will shift more towards coinciding strategic interests and less towards common democratic values.

The relationship between India and Western countries is increasingly characterised by a paradox. On the one hand, the country’s rise has caused both sides to increasingly share geostrategic interests, for example in the Indo-Pacific. On the other hand, dif­ferences are growing as New Delhi’s domestic policy moves further and further from Western ideals – this applies to economic policy as well as the state of Indian democ­racy. This change is affecting India’s relations with Germany and Europe as the pro­motion of Indian industry and the restriction of democratic rights also affect Euro­pean companies and civil society organisations respectively. The narrative of a part­nership with India based on shared values, which has been cultivated for decades in Europe and the USA, will shift more towards coinciding strategic interests and less towards common democratic values.

The formation of the Government of National Unity (GNU) under Abdelhamid Dabeiba in March 2021 was a breakthrough in efforts to overcome Libya’s political division. But the settlement’s flaws are already starting to show. So far, political actors have merely agreed to compete for access to state funds within a unified government. Dis­tributive struggles could soon test the government’s cohesion. Meanwhile, substan­tive disagreements are being shoved aside; in particular, the government is trying to ignore the challenges in the security sector. Unless progress is made towards elections that are planned for December 2021, tensions between profiteers and opponents of the government risk provoking a new political crisis. But even the elections them­selves harbour potential for renewed conflict.

The formation of the Government of National Unity (GNU) under Abdelhamid Dabeiba in March 2021 was a breakthrough in efforts to overcome Libya’s political division. But the settlement’s flaws are already starting to show. So far, political actors have merely agreed to compete for access to state funds within a unified government. Dis­tributive struggles could soon test the government’s cohesion. Meanwhile, substan­tive disagreements are being shoved aside; in particular, the government is trying to ignore the challenges in the security sector. Unless progress is made towards elections that are planned for December 2021, tensions between profiteers and opponents of the government risk provoking a new political crisis. But even the elections them­selves harbour potential for renewed conflict.