The Fiery Future of the Mediterranean: The Path of Conflicts

The Mediterranean Sea’s location is remarkable, acting as a crossroads between Asia, Europe, and Africa. Each of these continents is so closely linked to it that without the sea, their importance seems diminished. Since ancient times, this sea has been a focal point for the world’s great powers, as they have competed to exert their influence over it. Major states have historically used this region to bolster their power. The Mediterranean’s strategic location has made it of exceptional political and geographical importance to many countries in Asia and Europe. Despite civil wars and foreign-instigated destruction, Libya remains a key state in this context.

When the Cold War began, the U.S., under the Truman Doctrine, started providing significant aid to Greece and Turkey. The main goal was to strengthen American interests in the Mediterranean, while also ensuring that Greece and Turkey emerged as strong American allies against the Communist bloc. During the Cold War, the Mediterranean was of immense political and diplomatic significance—not just for the U.S. and Russia but also for Greece and Turkey. As vital members of NATO, Greece and Turkey could not be overlooked. Meanwhile, Syria and Egypt emerged as Soviet allies, with military bases established in Tartus (Syria) and Sidi Barrani (Egypt).

Until 1972, the Soviet Union used the Sidi Barrani base to monitor NATO activities. However, after the Cold War ended and the Soviet Union disintegrated, the region lost its importance to the U.S. and Europe, who were no longer willing to invest in their allies here. Cold War politics had forced the U.S. to focus on the Middle East and Afghanistan. Meanwhile, China was also rising rapidly, posing another challenge for the U.S. Neglecting the Mediterranean reshaped global dynamics, encouraging China’s rise. But then, new oil and gas reserves were discovered, and the region regained significance. Now, the U.S., Europe, Russia, and regional powers are all competing to control these natural resources.

It is now evident that the discovery of gas reserves has driven regional countries to increase their investments, aiming to strengthen their political positions. This investment was necessary not only to meet domestic needs but also to compete globally. The growing demand for gas in any country determines which state will emerge as the leading supplier. Today, many nations depend solely on gas for their energy needs. As a result, gas has become more crucial than oil in terms of power dynamics. Consequently, the political landscape has shifted. Relying on a single energy source has also changed the strategic realities for the involved countries. Libya is a prime example of this, where governance has slipped out of control, for which the U.S. and the West bear full responsibility.

Experts have confirmed the existence of significant gas reserves in the Mediterranean region. The desire to control these reserves has once again turned the Mediterranean into a battleground. All the major powers are committed to focusing more on this region, intensifying the competition. According to a survey by the U.S. Geological Service, the discovery of 340 trillion cubic feet of gas in areas stretching from Lebanon to Cyprus and Egypt has sparked disputes and conflicts. Many countries are now laying claim to the gas-rich areas, escalating tensions to the point where preventing large-scale military conflict may not always be possible.

Greece has not only explored for oil and gas on a large scale but has also begun extraction. Turkey and the Turkish-administered area of Cyprus also have vast maritime boundaries in the Mediterranean. However, whenever they attempt to extract oil and gas, Greece and the Greek-controlled part of Cyprus object, intensifying the conflict. Cyprus is a shared territory between Turkey and Greece, and both claim equal ownership over its resources. Turkey wants to explore and extract oil and gas in the Greek-controlled part of Cyprus, but Greece opposes this, citing ownership disputes over a small island. This has once again led to heightened tensions between the two countries. The atmosphere in the Eastern Mediterranean is becoming increasingly tense, and the growing friction between Turkey and Greece poses a warning to other countries in the region. Should this conflict escalate further, its negative effects will ripple across the entire region.

Three years ago, Turkey’s National Oil Company announced that by 2023, the centenary of modern Turkey’s founding, it aimed to meet its oil and gas demand entirely through domestic sources. Turkey’s Ministry of Energy has also declared its ambition to become the leading country in the region in terms of fulfilling its oil and gas needs domestically. The fundamental question now is how this will unfold and what impact it will have on the region’s security. The growing tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean call for diplomatic efforts to resolve these disputes amicably. However, no such attempts have yet been made.

The exploration of oil and gas in the region needs to be re-evaluated. Libya is a crucial country because its oil and gas reserves are among the largest. Its political and economic conditions have caused concern for many nations in the region. Libya still holds the position of the biggest gateway for Africa. It is located in a part of the Mediterranean Sea where there are extensive reserves of oil and gas, both offshore and on Libyan soil. Whoever has control over Libya can monitor the entire region, and, most importantly, has access to vast oil and gas reserves. All regional and external powers understand that they cannot completely dominate the Mediterranean, but they remain involved in the region to ensure that no single nation can monopolise all the resources.

Libya’s significance can be gauged by the fact that its internal situation involves the interests of the US, Russia, Europe, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt, Qatar, Greece, and Cyprus (under Greek administration). Russia, Saudi Arabia, Greece, the UAE, and Western nations have backed General Khalifa Haftar in the Libyan conflict.

On the other hand, Turkey and Qatar have given full support to the UN-appointed Prime Minister Fayez al-Sarraj. The situation in Libya clearly shows that the presence of vast oil and gas reserves in the region has united former enemies, while those who were allies yesterday now stand face-to-face in opposition. This is all about dividing the resources. Each side wants to control the largest share of the natural resource-rich areas. Several militias under General Haftar are preparing to overthrow the legitimate government, with the support of various powers. While this is entirely wrong, it is happening, nonetheless. Some regional and European nations are providing financial and military support to Haftar, while Turkey has made two significant agreements with Libya’s official government.

On one hand, there is a power vacuum in Libya, and on the other, the balance of power in the region has shifted. The presence of extensive oil and gas reserves has further exacerbated the situation. With the table set, everyone is vying for a share. For more than a decade, the Eastern Mediterranean has been the focal point of attention and competition for external forces, and this situation has intensified over time. The presence of major powers may prevent any one nation from taking complete control of the region, but there is also the concern that this area will remain a battleground for great powers.

The importance of this region, from Libya to Syria, is evident when we consider that the wars here are nothing more than a conspiracy, a drama enacted for vested interests. In the 1930s, the famous American Marine Major General Smedley Butler investigated the various groups that used American military power to protect their own interests. From National City Bank’s interests in Haiti to United Fruit’s plantations in Honduras, from Standard Oil’s access in China to Brown Brothers in Nicaragua, Major General Butler tried to prove that the US military was working to protect the interests of a few large corporations, with the damage being covered by the American public’s money. The wealth accumulated by their hard work was plundered by big businesses working in tandem with the political system. While times and circumstances have changed, the old saying still holds true: “The more things change, the more they stay the same.”

It is worth noting that in Gaddafi’s final years, relations between China and Libya had flourished. In 2010, trade between the two countries exceeded $6.6 billion. In 2007, when the US began focusing on Africa, Gaddafi, addressing students at Oxford University, stated that maintaining good relations with China had proven to be very beneficial. He praised China’s investment in Africa, stating that by staying out of regional politics, the Chinese had won the hearts of millions across Africa. However, the situation has since changed. During the early days of the transitional setup, relations with China cooled, with officials from Libya’s National Transitional Council explaining that China was being punished for its delayed recognition of the revolutionary forces. Although this statement was later retracted, it became evident that many Chinese companies were waiting to recover and restore over $18.8 billion worth of frozen assets in Libya. Eventually, the transitional council completed several successful rounds of talks with Chinese companies, steering matters in the right direction.

In truth, Libya has been overlooked in the power dynamics between large and medium-sized powers because China opposed the use of mercenaries and air strikes led by the UAE, Turkey, and Russia. However, after these events, China began using investment and influence in ways that align with its global ambitions, aiming to ensure Libya’s eventual inclusion. Notably, in 2011, China abstained from voting at the UN Security Council on military intervention against Gaddafi and immediately rejected NATO’s airstrikes on government forces and the no-fly zone. China’s staunch opposition, driven by fears of a “humanitarian disaster” and the potential to counter US influence, has since strengthened its neutrality policy in Libya and the broader region.

Since the fall of Gaddafi’s regime, China’s involvement in Libya, and its behind-the-scenes diplomacy, has focused primarily on economic engagement as the strongest line of influence. Avoiding military entanglements, China has wisely advanced its commercial ambitions. Despite adhering firmly to its principles, Beijing has demonstrated a keen awareness of local realities, reshaping its approach to adapt to shifting circumstances and maximising its benefits amid the uncertain outcomes of the conflict.

When faced with the 2011 uprising, China rejected NATO-led military intervention and maintained its economic relations with Libya, demonstrating its continued commitment to a long-standing non-intervention policy. However, this stance caused friction with the Arab League and the African Union, both of which supported military action in Libya. At the same time, Beijing was keen to maintain its recently strengthened diplomatic and economic ties with countries in the Middle East and Africa. More importantly, China sought to protect its national security by avoiding endorsement of the “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine, which sets a global standard for intervening in sovereign states on the basis of human rights protection. This perspective was also shared by Russia, resulting in a convergence of China-Russia policies not only regarding Libya but also in relation to Syria and Iran, with China often following Moscow’s lead.

It is noteworthy that before the 2011 conflict in Libya, China had been involved in various infrastructure projects, and in return, Libya was sending substantial investment to China. By 2011, 75 Chinese companies were operating in Libya with approximately $18.8 billion in contracts. These projects involved 36,000 Chinese workers across 50 ventures, ranging from residential and railway construction to telecommunications and hydropower projects. In particular, prior to the Libyan revolution, Libya supplied 3% of China’s crude oil imports—about 150,000 barrels per day—which accounted for a tenth of Libya’s crude exports. Beyond oil imports, Chinese companies were deeply involved in Libya’s oil industry, with all of China’s major state-owned oil firms—CNPC, Sinopec Group, and CNOOC—holding substantial infrastructure projects there. These factors led the U.S. and Western powers to fear that China’s existing commercial influence in Libya could result in the entire region slipping out of their control, a concern that likely contributed to Gaddafi’s eventual downfall. However, the irony of fate is that China has since managed to restore its commercial trust on a war footing, confirming that China will not remain silent if the Mediterranean becomes a potential battlefield.

The question now is whether the U.S. and the West are willing to ignite the Mediterranean seas in an effort to curb China’s growing influence, especially as the situation has become more perilous and alarming than ever before.