Why did the Libyan negotiations in Ankara reach a deadlock?
The negotiations failed primarily because Turkey attempted to capitalize on previous progress made by the United States and the United Nations without securing their necessary support for a new settlement. Professor Ramadan al-Nafati, an expert in International Relations, suggests that the talks were doomed by a combination of haste from the eastern Libyan leadership and an overly ambitious Turkish attempt to act autonomously in the region.
The core issue remains the distribution of power between the rival Libyan camps. While previous agreements had successfully addressed technical cooperation—such as a unified state budget and joint military exercises—the discussions in Ankara hit a wall when faced with the fundamental question of supreme command. The inability to reach a consensus on who would hold ultimate decision-making authority within a unified military structure prevented any meaningful progress.
How has Egypt's influence countered Turkish ambitions in Libya?
Egypt has consistently acted as a major counterweight to the 2019 Turkey-Libya maritime boundary memorandum, which Cairo views as a threat to its interests in the Eastern Mediterranean. Professor al-Nafati argues that Ankara failed to account for how deeply regional powers like Egypt can sway the decisions of Libyan factions, even those located in Tripoli.
The influence of Cairo was particularly evident in the reactions of the Libyan leadership following the Turkish-led talks. While Turkey attempted to exert pressure on the Tripoli-based Government of National Unity (GNU) to unify military institutions, the Libyan leadership appeared more focused on maintaining its ties with Egypt. This regional tug-of-war ensures that any agreement brokered by Ankara must contend with Egyptian maritime and security concerns to be viable.
The role of maritime boundaries and economic zones
The 2019 memorandum between Turkey and Libya regarding maritime delimitation remains a primary source of friction. Egypt's concerns regarding these boundaries extend beyond mere territorial claims; they involve the protection of economic zones and resource rights in the Mediterranean. This geopolitical reality forces Libyan actors to balance their domestic political needs with the strategic requirements of their regional patrons.
What triggered the sudden shift of Saddam Haftar toward Cairo?
Saddam Haftar's unexpected visit to Cairo on October 26, 2026, signals a strategic pivot following the lack of concessions from Turkey during the Ankara talks. According to al-Nafati, the Haftar leadership realized that their willingness to discuss the potential abolition of the General Commander position did not yield the political or security guarantees they expected from Ankara.
This move to Egypt is interpreted as an attempt to restore and solidify relationships with Cairo, which remains one of the most vital diplomatic pillars for the Haftar family. By meeting with Egypt's intelligence chief, Lieutenant General Hassan Rasad, Saddam Haftar is seeking to rebuild a support network that provides more stability than the current Turkish-mediated process. This shift highlights the volatility of Libyan alliances when regional interests are not aligned.
How did the Tripoli government respond to Turkish pressure?
The Government of National Unity in Tripoli, led by Prime Minister Abdul Hamid Dbeibah, faced significant pressure from Ankara to support the unification of Libya's military institutions. This pressure coincided with a high-profile visit to Tripoli by Ibrahim Kalin, the head of Turkish intelligence, who was perceived as attempting to coerce Dbeibah into personally participating in the Ankara negotiations.
Instead of yielding entirely to Turkish influence, Dbeibah appeared to pivot toward Cairo. Following the failure of the talks, the Prime Minister held telephonic communications with Egypt's intelligence chief, Hassan Rasad. During these discussions, Dbeibah expressed an intention to take Egyptian concerns regarding maritime borders and Mediterranean economic zones into account, suggesting that Tripoli is wary of being seen as a mere instrument of Turkish policy.
What is the impact of international hesitation on the Libyan peace process?
The lack of explicit support from the United States and the United Nations for the Ankara-led initiative significantly undermined the Turkish position. Professor al-Nafati notes that American reservations regarding the ratification of the Turkey-Libya memorandum indicate that Ankara had not secured the necessary Washington backing before attempting to lead the mediation process.
The silence of the United Nations regarding the specific negotiations in Turkey further suggests that the international community was not prepared to endorse a settlement that bypassed established UN-led frameworks. This lack of multilateral cohesion leaves the Libyan factions in a state of uncertainty, as neither the Turkish-led nor the UN-led processes have yet provided a definitive path toward stability.
What remains the primary obstacle to military unification?
The central hurdle to a unified Libyan military remains the question of supreme command and the preservation of existing institutional roles. During the discussions between Saddam Haftar and Tripoli representative Abdul Salam al-Zoubi, the debate focused on who would control the future unified military command structure.
The political significance of this struggle was underscored when al-Zoubi met with the President of the Presidential Council, Mohamed al-Menfi, immediately after returning to Tripoli. Because the President of the Council holds the legal position of Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, the meeting served as a signal that Tripoli intends to protect the existing constitutional powers of the Presidential Council against any new military arrangements that would diminish its role.
Frequently asked questions
Why did the Ankara talks fail?
The talks failed because of a fundamental disagreement over the control of the unified military command. Additionally, Turkey's attempt to lead the process without the full support of the United States and the United Nations weakened its diplomatic leverage during the negotiations.
How does Egypt influence Libyan politics?
Egypt exerts influence by supporting specific Libyan factions and opposing the 2019 Turkey-Libya maritime memorandum. This influence is so significant that even leaders in Tripoli consider Egyptian concerns regarding Mediterranean maritime boundaries and economic zones when making strategic decisions.
What was the significance of Saddam Haftar's visit to Cairo?
The visit was a strategic move to repair relations with Egypt after the Ankara negotiations failed to provide the Haftar family with the expected political advantages. It demonstrates that the Haftar leadership views Egyptian support as a critical diplomatic necessity.
What role did Turkish intelligence play in the negotiations?
Turkish intelligence chief Ibrahim Kalin visited Tripoli to pressure Prime Minister Abdul Hamid Dbeibah into participating in the Ankara talks. This visit was intended to bolster the Turkish-led initiative and push for the unification of Libya's military institutions.
Will the UN return to the forefront of Libyan mediation?
It is highly likely that Libyan factions will return to the United Nations-led process. Since the Ankara talks failed to produce a breakthrough, the UN remains the only internationally recognized framework capable of hosting a comprehensive and widely accepted peace process.
Key takeaways
- Turkey's mediation in Ankara failed due to disagreements over military command and lack of US/UN support.
- Egypt's regional influence remains a decisive factor in the decisions made by both Tripoli and Benghazi leaders.
- Saddam Haftar's pivot to Cairo highlights the strategic importance of Egyptian backing for the eastern factions.
- The dispute over the 2019 maritime memorandum continues to drive tension between Turkey and Egypt.
- Libyan leaders are prioritizing the preservation of existing constitutional roles within the military command structure.
The future of Libyan political stability
The failure of the Ankara negotiations suggests that the path to Libyan unification remains fraught with regional complexities. As Turkey's attempt at autonomous mediation has stalled, the focus is likely to shift back to traditional international frameworks. The tension between Turkish maritime interests and Egyptian security concerns ensures that any future settlement must address the deep-seated geopolitical rivalries of the Mediterranean. Until a consensus is reached on the structure of military command and the legitimacy of maritime boundaries, Libya's internal divisions will continue to be shaped by the competing interests of its regional neighbors.
