Reading through the West’s never-ending attempts to control the Arab world by the creation of the so-called Greater Middle East and curb the influence of Islam which the West sees as a threat, it wouldn’t be difficult to realize that Egypt is the country that is primarily targeted by such attempts, albeit clandestinely.
Egypt is being threatened through different covert means that hide the ultimate objective: Marginalizing the Egyptian role.
One of the major challenges facing Egypt is the attempt aimed at crippling its economy, mainly through reducing the role of the Suez Canal in international trade.
Having failed to compete with the Suez Canal by building a substitute canal, Israel began contemplating another project. This, according to its finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, calls for building a railway line linking the port of Elat on the Gulf of Aqaba with Ashdod on the Mediterranean as a maritime line linking the East with the West.
The Israeli project, however, has not met with support from the European political and economic circles and was viewed as a further element of destabilization in a region living in continuous tension since Ariel Sharon became prime minister.
The project, as expected, won the backing of the United States after the Jewish lobby there announced its readiness to secure the financing.
It is not only the Suez Canal that is targeted by Israel. It has in mind other projects to diminish the role of the canal. These are all economic projects linked to future conflicts that the region and the world as a whole would definitely experience during this century, especially economic conflicts among big economic blocks.
One such project calls for reviving the Silk Road used in the past as a vital commercial route between Asia and Europe. According to experts, this route could attract 10 percent of the goods crossing the Suez Canal.
The Russian Federation has two projects of its own; one for building a sea route across the North Pole that could be navigated throughout the year.
The other project calls for building a double-service land and rail starting from India and Iran and ending in Europe through Russia, thus linking the North with the South.
Regardless of the importance of these projects, some of which may see the light in the near future, the Suez Canal would for years to come will continue to be the most secure, cost-effective and fastest international trade route. It would continue to serve as the main link between the North and South through Egypt that is serving as a bridge between continents of the world.
It was this scenario of the future map of international trade that drove Egypt to exploit Suez Canal’s unique position by embarking on a massive development project, increasing the canal’s capacity to accommodate supervessels and make sailing easier and faster in both directions.
Egypt also embarked on creating population centers all along the eastern bank of the canal to attract as many as two million inhabitants by the year 2017, as part of a development plan that calls for developing western Sinai area. The objective is to turn these areas into a business hub attracting international investment while boosting transit trade through the canal.
Away from the hostile Israeli attitudes toward Egypt, the development of the Suez Canal has become a necessity in light of the intensifying international economic rivalries and conflicts.
Planning new projects to serve international trade amid fierce competition reflects a serious vision that takes into account the dangers of future economic squabbles among nations and blocks that may ultimately lead to military confrontations as in the case of the invasion of Iraq that was met with large international disapproval.
Many political analysts forecast that the third world war would start as an economic conflict and that to avoid such a situation the political leaderships should intensify international meetings to address the economic confrontations and create rapprochement between various world economic interests while giving special attention to the poor countries.
Based on this, it could be said that the meeting of the big eight, including Russia, could not be a substitute for other regional and international meetings if economic peace is to be established in the world. This would definitely call for concessions from the rich in favor of the poor. The question is whether this is possible.
