The presence of fake news, particularly on social media is well understood, even if it is not always so easy to spot. Fake diplomacy is rather different. Four hundred years ago an English diplomat said memorably that an ambassador was an honest man sent abroad to lie for the good of his country. While this cynical analysis is undoubtedly still true at times, it ignores the many envoys who set out in good faith to represent their country abroad. The enduring problem among most Western nations is that their diplomats generally now only serve relatively short terms in any one country. They are moved on at the very point where their understanding of a country and its people is reaching its peak. Had they served more than the normal three or four years they would have been in a stronger position to inform and influence their home governments if a country is in a crisis.

Libya is a case in point. This complex and confused country is a minefield of conflicting fears and ambitions. Diplomats sent to embassies in the capital Tripoli endure the high risk they could be targeted by one disgruntled group of killers or another. Thus their posting is necessarily generally no more than three years. The personal relationships they have built with the good, the bad and the ugly among Libya’s political players leave with them on their final flight home. All this means their governments tend to use their local diplomats’ briefings to reinforce preconceived ambitions that bear little or no relationship to real needs of Libya.

Thus in the last two years, there has emerged a proxy diplomatic war between Paris and Rome to acquire decisive influence in Libya. Italy was the country’s last colonial occupier. Although Italian rule was often brutal, including the seizure of the best land for colonists, many Libyans, certainly along the coast, still feel some identity with their former occupiers. Indeed under Gaddafi, Italy was the country’s leading trading partner. France, however, has limited history with Libya. From 1943 to 1951 it occupied Fezzan in the southwest, which bordered the-then French colonial possessions of Algeria and Tunisia. Libya’s UN-sponsored independence obliged Paris to give up this vast territory, which it had hoped to annex. When oil and gas were later discovered, France’s Total rivaled Italy’s Eni among the international companies that partnered Libya in exploiting these resources.

Last May in Paris, French President Emmanuel Macron held a summit of rival Libyan leaders at which they agreed to hold elections next month, since aborted. Yesterday, the Italian government opened a two-day conference with the same Libyan players in Palermo. These and a similar initiative from both Paris and Rome have been greeted by the United Nations with something resembling gritted teeth. It is not that the UN, through its local agency UNSMIL, does not want peace. A succession of UNSMIL heads, most notably Martin Kobler and his successor Ghassan Salame, have worked tirelessly to create a Libyan Political Agreement acceptable to all parties. But the interference from France and Italy with rival initiatives has muddied the waters and encouraged local leaders to try and arbitrage one deal against another. Unfortunately, therefore, the diplomacy from Paris and Rome is fake. Libya needs the international community to speak with one United Nations voice.