In the midst of the ongoing crisis in Ukraine, the participation of Presidential Council Chairman Mohamed al-Menfi in the Ukraine Peace Summit held in Geneva has sparked questions about the Council’s approach to Libya’s foreign policy and its stance on major international issues. Despite al-Menfi’s attendance and meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Libya refrained from signing the final statement blaming Russia for the war, raising questions about the motivations behind this position.
Given the complex dynamics of influential forces in Libya and the internal divisions plaguing the country, the Presidential Council’s stance raises questions about whether it is adopting an independent foreign policy or attempting to balance the conflicting interests of international parties involved in the fragile and intricate Libyan file. This consideration is made without overlooking Libya’s geopolitical, historical, and economic significance on the global stage.
Jalel Harchaoui, a researcher at the Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies, views al-Menfi’s participation in the summit and his meeting with Zelensky as a “diplomatic signal” indicating that the Government of National Unity does not fully control Libya’s foreign policy, especially given its tendency towards closer ties with Russia. Conversely, others believe Libya’s refusal to sign the final statement reflects a new political direction aimed at maintaining an independent Libyan stance free from subordination to any party.
Journalist Mohamed al-Jazwi commented on Libya’s stance, saying: “Amidst the discussion about the shared image of Presidential Council Chairman Mohamed al-Menfi and the Ukrainian President on the sidelines of the Peace Summit, many overlooked the more important aspect: Libya’s refusal to sign the summit’s final statement.”
Al-Jazwi added that Libya’s official stance deserves analysis and discussion, as it reflects a new political direction that could have international repercussions and expresses an independent Libyan position free from subordination to any party.
In reality, the Presidential Council’s policy may be an attempt to balance the conflicting interests of regional and international powers in Libya, making it difficult to take a decisive stance on contentious international issues. With the ongoing internal divisions and power struggles, it is challenging for Libya to adopt a biased foreign policy, especially on issues that sharply divide major international powers.
At this stage, a policy of balance may seem like the practical option for Libya in dealing with contentious international issues, as it is challenging to take definitive stances amid persistent internal conflicts and divisions. While some parties seek closer ties with Russia, others strive to maintain balanced relations with the West and other influential countries in the Libyan file.
In this context, the Presidential Council’s stance at the Ukraine Peace Summit can be seen as an attempt to reconcile all these conflicting interests: attending the summit and meeting with the Ukrainian leader while refraining from signing the final statement blaming Russia for the war. Despite the apparent contradiction, this policy might be the most realistic approach to preserving a margin of diplomatic maneuverability given Libya’s complex circumstances.
However, this policy cannot be considered a permanent solution. Libya will need to adopt a clearer and more stable foreign policy in the long term. This will only be achievable by overcoming internal divisions and achieving political stability, enabling the country to make independent decisions that serve its highest national interests free from external pressures and conflicts.