2025-08-13
Al Raya Newspaper: Maritime Diplomacy Between Greece and Libya
In the Face of the Turkish-Libyan Agreement
Greece has called on the internationally recognized Libyan government (the Government of National Unity in Tripoli) to begin bilateral negotiations on the demarcation of maritime borders and exclusive economic zones (EEZ) in the Mediterranean. This step aims to repair strained relations since the signing of the controversial Libyan-Turkish maritime agreement in 2019. As well as addressing Libya's objections to the hydrocarbon exploration tender launched by Greece near the island of Crete and enhancing bilateral cooperation, especially in the field of combating illegal immigration from Libya towards the Greek islands (such as Crete and Gavdos).
The direct background to the tension dates back to the signing of an agreement between the Libyan Government of National Accord and Turkey in November 2019 to demarcate maritime borders between them. The borders were drawn in this agreement in a way that completely ignores the existence of the Greek island of Crete (and other Greek islands), as it was considered a straight line between the Libyan coast and the Turkish coast. The agreement also reflects the continuation of Turkey's regional vision as the heir to the Ottoman Caliphate, where Ankara justifies the agreement with historical rights inherited from Ottoman treaties, such as the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923, which Turkey considers not bound by its current maritime borders.
This trend is embodied in Turkey's provision of direct military support to the Tripoli government since 2019, based on historical ties and a former naval base in the Ottoman era. While Greece rejects this proposal, stressing that modern international law cancels historical legitimacy. Athens has resorted to the United Nations and the European Union to impose sanctions on Turkey, considering the agreement "a violation of sovereignty."
International Reactions:
This agreement sparked outrage in Greece, Cyprus, and Egypt, and considered it a flagrant violation of the International Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which gives islands full maritime rights. It also faced condemnation and calls for its cancellation from the European Union and the United States, fearing the escalation of tension in a vital region for maritime transport and energy. Europe's support for Greece as a barrier against Russian expansion in the Mediterranean through allies such as General Haftar in eastern Libya. However, the European Union shows an internal division between politically supporting Greece and the desire to ensure energy supplies from Libya through Turkey.
As for Russia, it sees this competition as an opportunity to strengthen its military presence and obstruct competing gas pipeline projects such as EastMed, which may undermine Russian gas exports.
China also, through its investments in Libya's infrastructure, benefiting from the security vacuum to promote the Belt and Road project.
While the Egyptian position fluctuates between opposing the Turkish agreement because it contradicts its maritime borders, and the recent rapprochement with Ankara, especially after the gas discoveries in the joint Shorouk area.
Employing Libyan Division as an International Tool:
The Tripoli government, supported by Turkey, adheres to the maritime agreement with Ankara, while the eastern government allies with Russia and Egypt. This division deprives Libya of its unity of decision and makes it an arena for international conflict, so agreements are concluded by one party without the approval of the other. Which makes the Greek call, despite its legal nature, clash with a fundamental obstacle: the absence of unified sovereignty in Libya.
The main driver of the conflict lies in the existence of huge gas wealth under the seabed of the Mediterranean, which makes the scene more complex, as Turkey seeks to guarantee a share through agreements with Libya, while Greece seeks to prevent this expansion through alliances with Egypt, the Jewish entity, and Cyprus. As for the immigration file, Athens has used it as a pressure card, as it uses it to justify strengthening its maritime and military presence in the south. On the other hand, Turkey threatens to use Libyan military bases as a pressure card, while Europe resorts to imposing political and economic sanctions. Thus, the files of economy, sovereignty, and immigration intertwine in the battle for influence in the region.
Confrontation Strategies in the Mediterranean: Between Turkish Militarization and European Pressure:
Turkey relies on a dual approach in confronting the maritime dispute, militarily by deploying its warships to protect exploration operations, and exploiting its bases in western Libya as the Al-Watiya base to impose a fait accompli, and diplomatically by threatening to postpone the Libyan parliament's ratification of the agreement to blackmail Europe, exploiting sensitive files such as immigration and customs.
In contrast, Greece seeks to turn the conflict into a unified European battle, by portraying the Turkish-Libyan agreement as a threat to collective security to attract the support of NATO and the European Union, and employing the immigration crisis from Libya to its islands such as Crete as a pretext to strengthen its military naval presence.
As for the possible scenarios, they are heading towards three different paths; Either military escalation if the Libyan Parliament ratifies the agreement, which may push Greece to a response supported by the NATO alliance, or a division of influence through tripartite negotiations (Turkey, Greece, Libya) with UN mediation, guaranteeing shares in the wealth of the Mediterranean, or a continuation of the stalemate due to the internal Libyan division and the inability of international powers to impose a final solution.
From here, it becomes clear that the Libyan-Greek event is not just a border dispute, but rather an embodiment of a broader geopolitical conflict, where the major powers are reshaping their alliances in the Libyan power vacuum, using the legacy of history and the wealth of the future. Turkey will have the central role in resisting any attempt to undermine the 2019 agreement or reduce its influence in Libya and the Eastern Mediterranean. Rather, it may pressure Libya or make promises and threats to maintain the status quo.
In conclusion, dancing on international law is futile, as it will create side conflicts and disputes over narrow national interests, which reinforces the division of the region's countries within the orbit of the major powers controlling the world, while Muslims are primarily burned by the fire of this international law, under which humanity has lived through two devastating world wars, which historically entrenched the dominance of major countries over Muslims, and whose laws contradict the provisions of Islam in full detail, and were behind most of our misfortunes in the modern era from the fall of the Caliphate to the division of Muslim countries to the planting of the Jewish entity in the heart of the Islamic nation, to what is happening now in Gaza, Sudan, and other Muslim countries. Cutting off from this unjust system can only be done by establishing the Caliphate state, which will resume Islamic life and impose a new international reality, and the nation will regain its legitimate and historical right to every inch in the sea, land, and air that was once subject to the authority of Islam, and the Caliphate state will work from its establishment to establish international norms that elevate people, advocate for the oppressed, and put an end to colonialism, the looting of wealth, and the circumvention of vulnerable peoples in the world, ﴿And those who have wronged will know to what [kind of] return they will be returned﴾.
By: Professor Yassin Ben Yahya
Source: Al Raya Newspaper
