Steven Kay KC of 9BR Chambers has published what amounts to a quiet indictment of British foreign policy paralysis on Libya. Writing in the Guardian, Kay reveals that his chambers — acting on representations from Libyan tribal leaders — produced a formal report titled "Libya: The Voice of the Tribes" and offered successive UK governments a specific, actionable role: issue visas, convene a peace and unification conference in London, and invite legitimate political and military leaders from both eastern and western Libya while excluding bad actors. Neither the Conservative nor Labour government took up the offer. Kay's explanation is blunt: neither showed "any confidence to do anything contrary to the policies of the US." Those US policies, he argues, are centered on backing the Haftar clan — specifically Khalifa Haftar and now his son Saddam, who Patrick Wintour's reporting links to drone attacks on Libyan fuel infrastructure. The US strategy treats the Haftars as stabilizing proxies; Kay calls this "doomed to failure" if democratic elections are the actual objective. The letter lands against a specific backdrop. Wintour reported on 3 October that Libyan unity talks were upended after Saddam Haftar was linked to drone strikes on fuel facilities. This is not a peripheral figure — the Haftar family controls the Libyan National Army and has de facto authority over much of eastern Libya, backed by the UAE, Egypt, Russia's Wagner Group, and — Kay asserts — the United States. Kay's core argument is about extraction in two senses. First, Libya's extensive natural resources are being "dissipated in corruption and conflict" rather than used for societal improvement — a textbook resource curse maintained by warmonger incentives. Second, the UK is extracting nothing from its current passive posture: no diplomatic credibility, no trade advantage, no influence. It is paying the cost of alignment with a failing US strategy while receiving none of the benefits an independent brokering role could generate. The structural critique is sharper than it first appears. Kay is not making a humanitarian plea. He frames independent UK action as serving British national interest: enhanced standing as a UN Security Council permanent member, trade opportunities in a resource-rich Mediterranean economy, and a counter to the "declining power" narrative. The argument is that subservience to Washington on Libya is not just morally questionable but strategically foolish — a negative-sum position where the UK bears reputational costs and captures zero upside. The Libyan population, Kay writes, "want nothing more than peace, security and to use constructively the wealth that could be generated from their extensive natural resources." This is a country with Africa's largest proven oil reserves, sitting across the Mediterranean from Europe, whose instability feeds migration pressures, arms trafficking, and regional destabilization. The status quo serves arms dealers and factional warlords. It does not serve Libyans, and Kay argues persuasively that it does not serve Britain either. What makes this letter notable is its specificity. This is not an op-ed calling vaguely for engagement. A named barrister at a named chambers is saying: we have the mechanism, we have the tribal buy-in, we need visas and a venue. The UK's refusal is not about capability or complexity — it is about the political cost of diverging from Washington on a file where Washington's chosen partner is now linked to attacking civilian fuel infrastructure.
