International experts and researchers stressed in a symposium organized by the Emirates Center for Policy, the day before yesterday, on "the struggle against Libya", that despite the recent changes on the ground in favor of the forces of the government of reconciliation led by Fayez al-Sarraj, neither of the warring parties in Libya can It controls the country and imposes its authority entirely on it, and there is no alternative to a political solution that guarantees the formula of whoever shares power with international sponsorship.
In the symposium that was devoted to discuss the reality of competition between external forces for geopolitical and economic interests in Libya, and foreseeing the prospects for the ongoing regional conflict on Libyan soil, the President of the Emirates Center for Policy, Dr. Ibtisam Al-Ketbi, indicated that the past period witnessed the emergence of interactions of geopolitical conflict on the Libyan soil between the powers Support for each side of the conflict, specifically between Turkey and Egypt, France and Russia, in addition to the indirect interactions of other international and regional powers such as the United States, the European Union, the African Union, Algeria and Tunisia.
Dr. Al-Ketbi said that three facts emerged from the recent field and political developments in the Libyan conflict: The first is that this conflict develops from a Libyan-Libyan war to a regional war, and the second is that the “zero approach” not only governs the Libyan parties, but also applies to external parties, and the third is The decision to make peace and war appears to have become more in the hands of outside powers than with the Libyans themselves.
For his part, Michael O'Hallon, director of research and senior researcher in security and strategic affairs at the Brookings Institution in Washington, explained that the belief that there is a decisive change in favor of one party in the Libyan conflict at the expense of the other is exaggerated, saying that it is wrong for this belief to be owned by Al-Sarraj and Turkey behind it. , And to act accordingly with exaggerated confidence that prevents them from the safest option of engaging in dialogue and discussing ways to stop the war and share power.
While Ohalon ruled out seeing the coming months seeing a focus by the US administration in Washington on the situation in Libya, saying that the United States has no strategy towards this country, he expressed his belief that Libya could represent an opportunity for cooperation between the United States and Russia, even though my leaders The two countries, Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, have missed over the past years a lot of opportunities that were open to cooperation in many issues, he said.
In his intervention at the symposium, the former British ambassador to Libya, Peter Millett, attributed the failure of the agreements to end the war in Libya, especially the Skhirat Agreement, to their non-representation of various parties, powers, and political and social components, and their lack of wide-ranging security, political and economic arrangements, and the inconsistency of the positions of some regional powers And the international community with the requirements of its declared commitment to support the peaceful resolution of the Libyan crisis.
The former British ambassador strongly criticized the European position on the Libyan crisis, noting that while Germany played a good role from a neutral position and was able to gather the parties at the Berlin conference, a country like the United Kingdom did not support this position, while France and Italy stand on opposite sides. The ambassador concluded that while Europe needs a secure and stable Libya, it does not play a role in this direction.
In turn, the Director General of the Russian International Affairs Council and the leading expert on Russian foreign policy affairs and contemporary international relations, Dr. Andre Kurtunov, pointed out the mistake of comparing the Russian role in Syria that has a geopolitical nature and the Russian role in Libya which has economic dimensions, explaining that Syria is more important As for Moscow from Libya.
In his analysis of the Turkish position in Libya, senior researcher at the Brookings Institution and professor of national security strategies at the American National Defense University in Washington, Dr. Omar Tash Pinar, said that although several factors stand behind the Turkish surge in Libya, some of them relate to geopolitical influence, economic dimensions and some The other has ideological dimensions, as the internal dimension related to President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's desire to strengthen his position in Turkey and distract attention from the internal problems that beset him; It plays an important role.
Dr. Tash Pinar explained that Turkey believes that through its control in Libya it can put Russia in a position that is easy to manage in Syria, and that at the same time it wants Libya to be a pressure card on the European Union, saying that a confrontation between Egypt and Turkey in Libya is what It will draw Washington's attention and compel it to intervene there.
Several factors are behind the Turkish surge in Libya, but the internal dimension related to President Erdo الرئيسan's desire to strengthen his position in Turkey and distract attention from the internal problems that beset him; It plays an important role.
While Germany played a good role from a neutral position and was able to gather the parties at the Berlin conference, a country like Britain did not support this position, while France and Italy stand on opposite sides.