On Tuesday, The European Parliament held a European conference facilitated in Brussels. The Conference entitled “Turkish intervention in the Mediterranean” and its objectives, causes, and threats.
Many politicians, political experts, and deputies were representing different political trends from five European nations, such as the Dr. Costas Mavrides, MEP for Cyprus and Chairman of the Political Committee for the Mediterranean in the Parliament; H. E. Yasar Yakis, the former Turkish Foreign Minister; Professor Niyazi Kizilyurk, MEP from Cyprus; Jean Valere Baldacchino, President of The Geopolitical Research and Analysis Circle in Paris, and Dr. Magnus Norell, Adjunct Scholar at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
The meeting concentrated on two principle parts: Turkish intervention in the eastern Mediterranean, explicitly the issue of gas research off the shoreline of Cyprus, and the Turkish direct military mediation in Libya. Various members censured the marking of the Libyan administration of compromise led by Fayez al-Sarraj with the Turkish regime, saying that these understandings undermine stability in the Mediterranean.
At the opening of the Conference, former Turkish Foreign Minister Yasar Yakis made a comprehensive historical introduction. In which he highlighted the reasons that incited Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to consent to the arrangement with the Libyan government.
The maritime borders in the Mediterranean and the length of oceanic borders that add up to 1700 km with Greece and the remainder of the Mediterranean nations is one of the few reasons.
Yakis reflected that Turkey has demanded to partition the sea borders and freedom to access its riches, and this is the objective through which Erdogan tries to get a legitimate right in regards to maritime edges. Along these lines, a unilateral deal was marked with Libya to demarcate the oceanic borders without counseling with the remainder of the Mediterranean nations.
“It urges us to ask questions about the risks assailing Turkey through its concentration in Libya,” he said.
He included, “Erdogan’s approaches may transform Libya into another Syria.” He expressed this mainly as a result of its oil riches, particularly since Turkey right now not have any apparent policy to escape this emergency.
He included that Erdogan additionally consented to a military collaboration deal with the legislature of Tripoli. However, the significant issue with this administration is that it’s dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood and state armies connected to terror-based groups.
He additionally cautioned that the vague Erdogan’s Turkish foreign policy might place Ankara in grave peril because of this extension towards Libya.
Niyazi Kizilyurk, MEP for Cyprus, placed the Turkish intervention in Libya in the class of the contest for energy sources and thought about that Erdogan was causing Turkey’s separation through its expansionist approaches.
Kizilyurk stated that Cyprus has the freedom to invest its energy assets inside its sea borders, yet Turkey won’t acknowledge this right and power.
He inquired as to why Erdogan wouldn’t consult with the nations of the region to arrive at an understanding that fulfills all parties and permits the dissemination of wealth of energy, which falls within the international laws.
Costas Mavrides, MEP for Cyprus and chair of the Political Committee for the Mediterranean in European Parliament, stressed that the policy that Erdogan had been actualizing thoughtfully in the Islamic world for quite a while is placing him in face to face showdown with the remainder of the nations of the district. Consequently, this expansionist policy was the center of the issue through these hostile strategies that don’t acknowledge international laws.
Mavrides thinks that this model is essential for Erdogan, as the Turkish parliament bolsters him and votes in favor of him with laws intended for securing people with Ottoman roots in the area as occurred with Muslims in Cyprus.
He concluded that Erdogan’s policies undermined the security of the Mediterranean, stressing that there was no part to play for Turkey in Libya. Furthermore, the agreement that Erdogan marked with Libya doesn’t fit in with the laws of the United Nations or European laws since Turkey doesn’t recognize Cyprus, which is a part of the United Nations and a member of the EU.
Magnus Norell, a scholar at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, talked about the Turkish foreign policy of the Erdogan government. In which he noticed that the Turkish intervention in Libya encapsulates the post-zero policy issue, a situation that is brimming with questions, which he depicted as an expansionist approach that undermines security and balance.
Norell expressed in the meeting that these expansionist choices are turning into pressure for Turkey and have built difficulties for Erdogan with nations in the region, for example, Egypt and Iran.
He likewise emphasized the requirement for Europe to intercede to block arms exports to Libya, notably weapons from Turkey, since it disrupts security and dependability in the area and represents a risk to the Mediterranean nations.
Jean Valere Baldacchino, President of The Geopolitical Research and Analysis Circle in Paris, likewise talked about Turkey’s expansionist strategy in Libya. Also, he concentrated on the degree of its peril to the war France is pursuing against terror based groups in Africa and Mali specifically. He stated that Turkey had aspirations for energy sources in the Mediterranean territory, expansionist offensive strategy, and justifying its interference in neighboring nations. Baldacchino also stressed and regretted that Europe didn’t manage the Erdogan government firmly and stringently.
All the members in the Brusselsconference expressed their concern over the Turkish intrusion in the Mediterranean, which would have territorial and global consequences, and also on metaphorically transforming Libya into another Syria in a brief period.
To Read more News from Europe