Abdullah Alkabir
Greek authorities have considered Haftar’s expulsion of the official European delegation a “calculated move,” one prepared in advance to thwart European attempts to develop joint plans with Haftar’s authorities to curb migration flows through Libya to Europe’s southern shores. Haftar stipulated the participation of his government in the meeting, a request the European delegation rejected for well-known reasons.
The Europeans recognize the Tripoli government as the legal authority recognized by the United Nations, and meeting with any other government is not only a violation of UN resolutions and norms, but also a waste of valuable time with comical figures who play the role of props on the stage of a single actor.
The Greek government spokesperson commented that the delegation was subjected to “unprecedented treatment directed against the European Union,” referring to the expulsion as an incident that “reveals clear political intentions.”
The expulsion, therefore, was a message conveying a refusal to cooperate with Europe on the migration issue. Consequently, migration rates from the shores of eastern Libya will not decrease, and may even increase. Europe must bear sole responsibility for addressing this issue, as long as it seeks to protect its territory, security, and its entire system.
What would Haftar gain from the migration issue? And why does he risk not responding to the European Union on Europe’s most sensitive and dangerous issue?
Haftar doesn’t care about European recognition of his government. He doesn’t require their presence with the other officials he meets, they do not accompany him during his foreign visits, and he doesn’t treat them as a government partner in decision-making.
Rather, he uses them to carry out specific tasks that relieve him of certain legal and political responsibilities. Therefore, the positions or statements issued by this government are worthless, as they merely echo what Haftar and his family want, but which he doesn’t announce publicly.
The Europeans know that Haftar is the decision-maker in his areas of influence. They could have negotiated with him about the details of the meeting’s set-up without violating diplomatic norms, had there been a strong possibility of the meeting’s success and achieving their goal of a clear agreement that would serve the European Union in curbing migration flows from the east.
Therefore, they refused to pay the price in advance without guarantees of receiving the goods. The position expressed by the Greek government through its spokesperson, with clear political intentions prior to the aborted meeting, is that Haftar intends to accept the maritime agreement with Turkey.
This raises an important question that Libya’s political elites must address: What will Turkey offer Haftar in exchange for Salah’s ratification of the agreement? After officially receiving his sons in Ankara, opening the Turkish consulate in Benghazi, and Turkish companies receiving contracts from his son, Belkacem, Haftar’s goal is certainly not to gain Turkish recognition of his authority. This is already being achieved through the development of his relations with Turkey, a natural extension of the development of relations between Egypt and Turkey.
Therefore, Turkey may have a greater role in strengthening Haftar’s authority at the expense of its other allies.
On the one hand, European concerns about irregular migration, and fears that the issue will transform from its humanitarian, legal, and political aspects into a pressure tool wielded by opponents and enemies to influence European decisions regarding its position on the war in Ukraine and the sanctions imposed on Russia, and because Russia enjoys strong influence and significant impact on Haftar, it is not unlikely that the expulsion of the European delegation is merely a prelude to a further escalation in migration rates towards Europe via Libyan territory, serving Russia’s goals in its conflict with Western powers.
_________________________
