A Greek analytical report has raised fresh questions about international policy in Libya, arguing that decisions by the United Nations contributed to shaping the country’s political trajectory after the 2012 elections.
The report, published by Hellas Journal, examines recent Greek diplomatic moves and offers a critical perspective on Western engagement in Libya.
According to the report, Greece’s recent steps—including reopening its consulate in Benghazi and expanding diplomatic outreach to eastern Libya—reflect a more pragmatic and realistic approach to the situation on the ground. It highlights meetings between senior Greek officials and Commander-in-Chief Khalifa Haftar as part of efforts to strengthen ties with eastern authorities, whose influence has grown in recent years.
The report criticises the continued recognition by international actors, including the United Nations, the European Union, and the United States, of the Tripoli-based government led by Abdel-Hamid Dbaiba. It describes this recognition as increasingly disconnected from political and security realities, arguing that it may conflict with the strategic interests of countries such as Greece.
It further claims that the European Union has maintained its support for authorities in Tripoli despite ongoing governance challenges and limited territorial control. The report suggests that this approach has not adequately addressed issues related to energy security or stability, particularly in regions where oil production and infrastructure are concentrated.
A central argument of the report is that international involvement following Libya’s 2012 elections altered the political process. It states that dialogue initiatives were encouraged after certain factions rejected the election results, contributing to a political outcome that, according to the report, diverged from the original electoral mandate.
The report also revisits tensions over the maritime agreement between Libya and Turkey, describing it as controversial and reaffirming Greece’s opposition. It argues that Athens’ alignment with broader European policy has at times limited its ability to pursue a more independent strategy.
