The recent news, initially released by the Guardian, about the proposed appointment of Bernardino Leon as Head of the Emirates Diplomatic Academy (EDA), with a very high salary, is undoubtedly embarrassing and disturbing for both Leon and the United Nations.

As a special envoy of the UN Secretary General to Libya, Leon is supposed to demonstrate the highest degree of impartiality and professional integrity. Given the well-known fact, however, that the United Arab Emirates strongly supports one of the parties to the Libyan conflict, namely the Parliament in Tobruk and its internationally-recognised government, there can be reasonable grounds to argue that for Leon to entertain a lucrative job offer by the Emirates, while performing his mandate as a UN envoy, may indeed constitute an instance of conflict of interest.

There were, in fact, a few email exchanges, as revealed by the press, between Leon and the Emirates’ foreign minister. The UN envoy discussed at length in one of his emails his views on the intricate Libyan situation and his arduous attempts to narrow the gap between the Libyan parties.

He also referred to a plan B, apparently favoured by the US and the EU, as an alternative to the negotiations which he was leading. Under this plan, an international peace conference would gather all the political Libyan groups and militia leaders to hold discussions, and reach binding decisions, with international guarantees, against the backdrop of a UN multinational force.

However, Leon viewed this as a “worse option than a political dialogue… as it will treat both sides as equal actors and will bypass legitimate institutions”.

Now that Leon is leaving the Libyan scene, and his German successor, Martin Kobler, is taking over, we should not be sidetracked from the real issue which is the future of Libya itself.

Leon may well be a fallen matador in the political arena who may be held accountable for possible political duplicity in his dealings with the Libyan question. This is something, however, which should be left for the United Nations to decide. It is futile for Libyans to waste their time discussing this issue.

Leon, with all his faults, undoubtedly endeavored to find a solution to the intricate Libyan dilemmas. As a veteran politician, with extensive experience, he may either rebound or quietly withdraw from the political scene. The urgent question, however, remains: What is next for Libya?

There are, in fact, quite a few options left which may salvage Libya and prevent it from falling deeper into an abyss of hatred and quagmire of conflict. The first option that comes readily to mind is for Kobler to pick up exactly at the point where his predecessor had left off. This will be, namely, to proceed immediately with the establishment of the stalled government of national accord (GNA).

There are quite a few options left which may salvage Libya and prevent it from falling deeper into an abyss of hatred and quagmire of conflict

Kobler, acting with a strong UN mandate, which includes imposing immediate sanctions on those who impede the peace process, can impress upon the Parliament in Tobruk and the General National Conference (GNC) in Tripoli the urgency to reach an agreement on the composition of the GNA, as per the final Skherat Draft proposed by Leon, mutatitis mutandis.

The newly-appointed government should move to Tripoli without delay to exercise its authority, enjoying strong international support and protection.

If Kobler fails in this task as his first challenge as a UN envoy, he will have only two alternatives left to him: he can either call for new general legislative elections to form a new Parliament, replacing both the current parliament in Tobruk and the GNC in Tripoli, or go back to square one and embark upon another endless spiral of UN-led negotiations.

Unfortunately, neither of these two options is truly viable. Holding general elections in a war torn country is virtually impossible as I argued in a previous article (October 31). Resuming the marathon of negotiations, following in the footsteps of Leon, will be, in my opinion, an exercise in futility. This path will lead us nowhere, after we had spent more than a year following it over three continents, met by one impasse after another.

There remain two alternatives. The first is for Libyans to commence negotiations inside Libya, which they lead themselves (Libyan-led negotiations). This requires a strong political will and a deep sense of national interest and inspired leadership.

Moderate elements, constituting the majority in the GNC and the parliament, can take the lead in such an initiative, mobilising a critical mass of support behind them by civil groups and militia leaders who truly believe in saving Libya from the claws of extremism and civil war.

Organisations such as the UN, the EU, the AU and the Arab League can provide logistical assistance, and may also offer advice, as well as international guarantees.

If this alternative does not prove to be viable because of strong internal differences and adverse external influences, the only option left will be Leon’s Plan B, that is, to hold an international peace conference on Libya. Kobler, in his capacity as the UN envoy, can propose the convening of the conference, to be sponsored multilaterally by the UN, the EU, the AU, the Arab League and possibly the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation.

All Libyan parties should attend as equals, in good faith, with no group excluded, except for those branded as “terrorist” by the international community, or adherents of destructive ideologies which oppose civil state and democratic values.

The five permanent members of the Security Council should be present, as well as representatives of important regional countries such as Egypt, Algiers, Morocco, Tunisia, Malta and Italy.

This should be a historic conference for saving Libya with binding decisions enforced by the international community, including the deployment of an international peacekeeping force, if necessary.

Malta will be, in my opinion, the ideal venue for such a conference as I have argued before.

The stakes are really high if a country with Libya’s tremendous geopolitical importance is allowed to descend further into chaos. Large areas of the long Libyan coast may fall, as Sirt and Derna already have, under the control of dangerous extremist elements, directly threatening Europe and destabilising North Africa.

The flood of immigrants would inundate the whole area, with further losses of human lives as winter approaches.

Libya’s oil industry, already in shambles, may become crippled, with huge losses for Libya and its major European clients such as Italy and Germany.

A destabilised Libya would be a disaster for all. For this reason, we should not allow the fall of the matador to lead to the fall of Libya itself.

Saadun Suayeh is the former Libyan ambassador to Malta.