What is expected from Libya's and Egypt's "favourite" dictators

It appears that the “Delimitation of Maritime Jurisdiction Areas” agreement signed by Turkey with Libya last week has upset international balances as much as Operation Peace Spring. Looking at the reactions to the agreement signed by Turkey and Libya as two sovereign countries, it becomes clear that some have under-the-table assumptions regarding sovereignty.

Neither Greece itself nor the powers it relies upon have the words or the power to match Turkey. Thus, it could only resort to shouting and ranting at Turkey, yet the attitude it displayed toward Libya is intriguing. Judging by its reaction to Libya's decision to expel the Greek Ambassador, Greece seems to believe that certain boundaries presumed for Libya have been violated.

However, it is crystal clear that the Libyan government acted entirely in the interest of the Libyan people through this agreement. What Greece demands from a Libyan government, on the other hand, is to waive the interests of the Libyan people in favor of Greece.

For Greece to expect from Libya something that no ruler with an ounce of loyalty to their own people could ever do requires a very special kind of relationship—one that clearly cannot be established with the legitimate Tripoli administration. This makes it blatantly clear why the putschist former General Haftar is wanted as the ruler of Libya. They want leaders at the helm of Libya who will safeguard their own interests rather than those of the Libyan people, no matter how detrimental these interests are to the Libyan people.

Just as they want to see Sisi at the head of Egypt. We already knew it, but Al Jazeera published documents showing that Sisi renounced 7,000 square kilometers of Egypt's Exclusive Economic Zone in the Mediterranean in favor of Greece. For what reasons, and through what pact of loyalty, could Sisi have displayed such generosity on behalf of his own people?

Yesterday, Professor Hayrettin Karaman also wrote: this is precisely why Greece and other European countries prefer to see a coup plotter like Sisi at the head of Egypt rather than a genuine President like Mohamed Morsi, who came to power through the votes of his own people and felt the necessity of accountability to his people every day and every hour of his governance.

The matter is that simple. Morsi being from the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamism of the Muslim Brotherhood, or Islamism's alleged connection to terrorism or extremism—these are all fairy tales. As long as this story serves a purpose in stealing the resources of Egypt and Libya, it will continue to be told, whether it fits or not.

The documents published by Al Jazeera reveal that Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry wrote an informational note to President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi regarding the “disagreements” during negotiations with Greece on defining the Mediterranean border, explicitly warning Sisi that if the Greek side insisted on its position, Egypt would suffer a loss of 7,000 square kilometers from its exclusive economic zone boundaries.

Moreover, despite being a Foreign Minister appointed by Sisi himself, Shoukry stated that the proposal from Greece should be rejected. Nevertheless, it appears that Sisi acted more like someone who considers Greece's interests rather than functioning as the ruler of Egypt.

Thus, with the acceptance of Greece's proposal on this matter, “the transfer to Greece of the areas located off the territorial waters of Turkey opposite Egypt was also implicitly accepted.”

Of course, the validity of this agreement, which disregards its own country's interests, lasted only until Turkey's agreement with Libya. With this deal, Turkey actually protects not only its own interests but also those of Libya and—strange as it may seem—Egypt, which had been squandered to Greece and the Greek Cypriots at the hands of Sisi. Thus, bypassing Sisi, Turkey provides Egypt with an opportunity to compensate for what it lost through this grave agreement. Strange but true.

Perhaps not Sisi himself, but the Egyptian people appreciate—and indeed should appreciate—Turkey's contribution through this agreement.

Despite this entire picture, CHP Vice Chairman Ünal Çeviköz still speaks of the necessity of mending relations with Assad and Sisi. Why, one wonders? Should Turkey mend relations with them and stand on the same ground of agreement as they do?

Do we not see that these figures are someone's favorite dictators? While this bestowed status of being "favorites" assigns them the task of squandering their own countries' resources on behalf of others, what kind of issue could possibly be resolved with these figures?

Turkey is now directly dealing with those who bestow upon them the role or rank of "favorite," and it represents the interests of both its own people and the rights of these countries better than these dictators do.

Follow the policies of the New Turkey a bit, and rest assured that you will need to set aside those learned foreign policy drills that make you a favorite in someone's eyes.