What Does Erdogan Want from Libya?

IRD: How do you assess the visits of European officials and Turkey’s Erdogan to Libya?

JGO: It seems that the purpose behind these visits by Erdogan, Cameron, and Sarkozy are to harvest the crop of their recent attempts in Libya. Cameron and Sarkozy have been the most influential leaders in the Libyan developments in recent months. These two countries, in addition to Italy, have paid specific attention to Libyan affairs. The absence of Italy now is because of its domestic affairs, which the Prime Minister is currently dealing with. Therefore, it seems that these visits are for pursuing opportunistic goals in a Libya after Gaddafi. However, being opportunistic does not convey a negative connotation here, because in a world where all countries fight for their interests, each country is after achieving the most.

IRD: What are the reasons behind Erdogan’s visits to Libya?

JGO: Turkey heavily invested in Libya during Erdogan’s time, and about 22 Turkish firms were active in different financial fields. Construction companies were active in the building of huge hotels and buildings in Tripoli. Recently, Turkish firms had entered the Libyan oil market. Of course, naturally the competition between Turkish companies that are the main financial axes in Libya could never reach the level of French, Italian, English or American firms.

Erdogan’s visit was made based on a pre-planned agenda. His main purpose was not Libya; Egypt and Tunisia were also on his agenda. The selection of these countries, which faced the most radical developments in the Arab world, has a purpose behind it.

However, Erdogan’s visit differs from that of Sarkozy and Cameron, who went to Libya merely for economic reasons, those being mainly the oil industry. Erdogan’s visit follows political and cultural purposes in addition to economic ones, due to the role Turkey plays in the region. Erdogan and his team are a great example for Islamic and Arab countries in all their actions through their clever diplomacy. Turkey is a country that is on the path of development, while also becoming a symbol of an Islamic country, with a moderate political and cultural approach flexible to all intellectual trends. This could be an example for economic development, the growth of values and cultural beliefs in a religious-democratic country.

IRD: How do you assess Iran’s role in comparison to Turkey in the recent developments in Libya?

JGO: Unfortunately, Iran’s stance in Libya and other Arab countries going through developments is not only not comparable but is also lagging way behind Turkey due to its dogmatic and one-way approach to North African and Middle Eastern countries.

Of course, if we take a realistic approach we should say that Iran and Turkey take different views in regards to Libya and the Arab Spring. This different viewpoint results in different approaches to this country. Iran’s viewpoint in regards to Libya and other Arab countries is a one-sided one. In other words, Iran’s interpretation of the developments in the Arab and Islamic countries is that of an Islamic awakening is taking place. Due to the dominance of this trend of thought and analysis in Iran, the result of these developments are assumed to be the establishment of Islamic governments in these countries. This is what Iran has in mind and is after. However, world developments do not take place according to our will, and it is the demand of nations that define their political future. We should see what the demand of the Libyan, Tunisian and Egyptian people is.  What is evident from these uprisings is that they are a protest against dictatorship and organized corruption of governments in the economic and administrative affairs of these countries. Countries that have had uprisings are Muslim countries, but their movements are not necessarily an “Islamic awakening” according to our definition. In addition the key roles played in these movements are by parties, not Islamic groups. All other classes of people including religious, nationalist and secular are involved as well. Also, none of these countries is after the establishment of an Islamic government, and we have heard this on numerous occasions from the Tunisian, Egyptian and Libyan leadership.

Unlike Iran, Turkey has a very realist approach in regards to the uprisings in the Arab world and has a clear view of the influence these popular uprisings will have.

Turkey is very flexible in regards to these movements. Erdogan used to have good relations with Gaddafi. He tried to maintain the interests of Turkish companies in Libya as much as he could. But when he saw that Gaddafi had no future, he withdrew his companies and planned a different future for Turkey in Libya.

Another difference between Iran and Turkey is that Turkey is after increasing its political potential and using it in pursuing its political goals, while Iran is losing its political capacity due to its unrealistic policies. We should accept the fact that the Arab world is also supportive of Turkey’s policies, while all the main regional players all against Iran’s policies.

Therefore the comparison between Iran and Turkey is not right in this regard. When a country is given international support it can play a role in the international scene, but when a country is in isolation its ability to move or innovate is taken away from it.

IRD: So what do these people want?

JGO: I believe that they demand the establishment of democratic countries. Governments that are administered based on the people’s votes. It could be said that Islamic symbols are observable among them, which is due to their adherence to Sharia law. Therefore there is no paradox in a people who observe Islamic rules and also demand a democracy. Adherence to Islam is not necessarily equivalent to the establishment of an Islamic government.

IRD: How do you see Iran- Libya relations in the future?

JGO: The important issue in this regard is that apart from who is at work in Libya, Imam Mousa Sadr’s case is on the top of the agenda between these two countries. This issue has been given more attention than required. In conversations between Mr. Salehi and Mr. Mostafa Abdulmajid, this case was given priority over bilateral relations between the two countries.

Iran and Libya had good relations during the Gaddafi regime. Visits among top ranking officials would occur, and they had good economic ties as well. Libya supported Iran during the war. But Iran’s special attention to the Imam Mousa Sadr case cast its shadow over our relations with Libya until the last days of this regime.

IRD: How do you assess Turkey’s future role in Libya?

JGO: When all the conditions are considered, it becomes evident that Turkey will have an active and clear role in Libya, while Iran’s role will be a dark and declining one.