Reports emerging about a new U.S.-led political initiative aimed at fostering consensus in Libya have generated understandable interest. According to international media reports, Washington is seeking to promote a power-sharing arrangement between the government in Tripoli and the forces controlling eastern Libya under Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar.
This development warrants careful assessment—not only because it concerns the future of a neighboring country of strategic importance to both Greece and Europe, but also because it could significantly affect the balance of power throughout the Eastern Mediterranean.
Fifteen years after the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi, Libya continues to search for a stable political and institutional equilibrium. Despite possessing Africa’s largest proven oil reserves and occupying a strategically important geographic position, the country remains divided among competing centers of power, armed groups, and external influences.
The American initiative appears to acknowledge a reality that is often overlooked in international analyses: no solution can be imposed unilaterally, and the reunification of the country requires cooperation among the political and military actors that exercise real influence on the ground.
Nevertheless, the challenges remain immense.
The memories of the civil war are still fresh. The siege of Tripoli in 2019 by Khalifa Haftar’s forces, involving Russian Wagner Group mercenaries and the active involvement of foreign powers, left deep scars on Libyan society. For many Libyans, the events of that period do not belong to the past; rather, they remain an open wound that continues to shape political attitudes and perceptions.
This explains why any proposal for power-sharing is met with skepticism. The lack of trust between rival factions, the presence of armed groups that have developed powerful economic and political interests, and the absence of unified state institutions make any process of national reconciliation exceptionally difficult.
Even so, the pursuit of a political solution is preferable to the perpetuation of the current situation. Libya cannot remain indefinitely an arena for competition among regional and international powers. Nor can the Mediterranean continue to live with a permanent source of instability on its southern shores.
For Greece, these developments are of particular importance.
The recent resumption of talks between Athens and Tripoli on the delimitation of maritime zones and the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) creates a new momentum that should not be allowed to slip away. This process did not begin from scratch. It had already been initiated in 2009 at the initiative of then Foreign Minister Dora Bakoyannis and was reaffirmed during my visit to Tripoli in 2012, when a shared commitment was identified to reach an agreement based on the principles of the International Law of the Sea.
This diplomatic momentum was lost in the years that followed. Libya’s internal collapse, foreign interventions, and the choices made by all parties involved created a new reality. In 2019, Greece invested politically primarily in Khalifa Haftar, believing that his opposition to Turkey created the conditions for strategic convergence. Regardless of its intentions, this approach failed to produce the expected results and did not prevent the signing of the Turkey–Libya Memorandum.
That agreement continues to pose a serious challenge to Greece’s sovereign rights and to the stability of the Eastern Mediterranean. For this reason, Greek diplomacy must closely monitor every development within Libya.
Greece is right to engage with the internationally recognized government in Tripoli while simultaneously maintaining open channels of communication with all political and institutional actors that influence developments on the ground. Foreign policy cannot be built on personality-driven choices or exclusionary approaches. It requires both consistency of principles and realism.
For precisely this reason, the international community must support a solution that is not based solely on power dynamics or temporary arrangements among influential actors, but rather on the reunification of institutions, respect for international legitimacy, and the gradual restoration of democratic legitimacy through elections when conditions permit.
The stability of Libya concerns not only the Libyan people. It also affects Europe’s energy security, the management of migration flows, Mediterranean security, and the overall balance of the wider region.
History has shown that power vacuums in Libya never remain vacant for long. They are always filled by others. For this reason, neither Europe nor Greece can afford to remain mere observers of developments.
Libya continues to stand at a difficult crossroads. The American initiative may not yet constitute the solution. It may, however, represent the first serious effort in recent years to move the country away from the logic of division and toward a logic of dialogue and accommodation.
And at a time of widespread instability across the Middle East and the Eastern Mediterranean, that alone constitutes a development worthy of attention—and of cautious optimism.