By legal advisor Hisham Al-Harati:
In international relations, economics and politics are not two separate tracks; they are two sides of the same coin whose clearest title is this: states’ interests are not measured by their rhetoric, but by their ability to manage balances and turn political complexity into economic opportunities that serve stability and development.
From this perspective, talking about attracting oil investments estimated at around USD 22.7 billion at the beginning of a single year, in a country going through a transitional phase and suffering from fragile negotiating leverage like Libya, cannot be treated lightly or reduced to a political conflict. In principle, it is an unprecedented figure that the country has not seen for more than 15 years, and it requires a deep legal and financial reading—not preconceived judgments.
Yes, this move is credited to the current government, regardless of disagreements with it. However, judging the quality of the deal should not be based on impressions or political alignment, but on legitimate benchmark questions, foremost among them:
• What is the foreign partner’s share in each agreement?
• What is the nature of the participation agreements (EPSA) or others?
• How were risks and returns distributed?
The absence of these details from public opinion makes any definitive judgment—positive or negative—premature, especially given Libya’s fragile negotiating position, where investment-attraction terms are sometimes less than ideal in exchange for achieving an investment breakthrough.
From a political economy perspective, the entry of American and French companies with investments of this magnitude does not affect oil production alone. It extends to creating a direct international interest in security stability within Libya and reducing the likelihood of sliding into a wide-scale conflict, because war does not serve countries that have injected funds of this size. It also helps reintegrate Libya into circles of economic—not merely security—interest.
Nevertheless, all these readings remain theoretical unless they translate into tangible results. The real test of any oil or investment deal begins with the volume of actual hard-currency revenues transferred to the Central Bank and their impact on the Libyan dinar exchange rate.
Then comes the extent to which this is directly reflected in easing the living burdens on citizens. If this chain is realized, we are facing a major strategic step that transcends governments and individuals. But if results are absent and the impact remains confined to statements and photos, then what occurred becomes nothing more than media spectacle that neither nourishes nor satisfies hunger.
Accordingly, power is transient and positions are fleeting, but what endures is impact. Wisdom lies not in rushing to judgment, but in waiting for indicators—because numbers alone do not lie.
