[ad_1]
Efforts to float the ship topped news bulletins around the world, and conversations spread over the search for alternative methods and the old drawer plans.
This was an expression of an ongoing struggle for Egypt’s unique geographical location, which epitomizes the Suez Canal, one aspect of its genius, in bridging the white and red seas and shortening the international trade routes between Europe and Asia.
With the legacy of modern history, the Egyptians realized that the crisis of the delinquent ships goes beyond the accounts of numbers, gains and losses, and technical investigations to clarify the truth of what happened, to the conflict again by the Egyptian site with the aim of marginalizing. for long periods to come and depriving it of any possible role in the region’s accounts and balance sheets.
The modern history of Egypt, its wars, crises, projects and defeats has been linked to the Suez Canal.
The nationalization of the Suez Canal was a global earthquake, so important to international trade and the strategies of the major powers.
No one in the world could have expected the nationalization of the Suez Canal before “Gamal Abdel Nasser” announced it from the platform of the “Mansheya Square” in Alexandria on July (26) (1956), nor did he propose to hand over the river Suez. Canal Company to Egypt after the end of the concession contract in 2005. 1968).
It was not a company that invested as much as a state within a state.
With Egyptian and French documents, Ferdinand De Lesseps led the most dangerous monument in modern history, since Egypt owned 44% of the capital of the company without having any control over its affairs, in addition to the tremendous sacrifices his peasants made while digging. the channel underground. forced labor.
This meant a drain on Egypt’s resources and financial capacity, allowing it to fall into the trap of external debts and leading to its occupation in (1882) with the British weapon.
The Suez Canal was the world’s most important engineering project in the 19th century and an iron constraint on Egyptian fate, and Egypt was all held hostage to the canal until it was able to nationalize it in the middle of the next century.
With the decision to nationalize Egyptian nationalism would be restored, and a third world country was able to challenge the former British and French empires at the center of its strategic interests in the Middle East, where the sources of oil whose cargo passes through the Suez River . Channel.
The audacity of the challenge takes its true meaning from its context in the conflict in the Middle East. After the July Revolution, Egypt tried to break out of the colonial spheres of influence, resisted military and political alliances to fill the void, broke the arms monopoly with the Soviet arms deal, supported national liberation movements in the Arab world, supported the media and politics Financing and arms, the Algerian revolution, and played a pivotal role in establishing a new international force out of the Cold War polarization of the newly independent countries in “Bandung”.
The Weiner context explains the impact of the decision to nationalize the Suez Canal on international accounts and conflicts in the region, and the degree of precision of his calculations of changes in the post-WWII world.
By traditional reckoning, it is an adventure of fate, weeks after the evacuation of the last British soldier from Egypt, which can lead to his reoccupation, or the overthrow of his regime in a coup similar to that of the Iranian leader, Dr. Muhammad Mossadegh, suffered after nationalizing his country’s oil. As confirmed by papers, documents, and certificates, the nationalization decision took time to study, gather information, and prepare for handling after nationalization.
Egyptian engineers and guides from the Suez Canal Authority proved exceptionally effective in dealing with the rogue ship crisis, which was one of the fruits of the canal’s nationalization.
If there are those who believe that the independence of a national decision is guaranteed and not taken away, then it is delusional, each independence has its costs, sacrifices and battles.
Egypt obtained full national independence in the Suez War with the blood bills exerted and the courage of its children who rushed to take up arms in the face of British-French-Israeli tripartite aggression, not through the signed “evacuation agreement” by “Abdel Nasser himself” in (1954), which included concessions made available to the forces. The British have the right to return to the Suez Canal base, if any of their allies are threatened.
The war was the culmination of the conflict in the region.
There are those who imagine that Egypt could have avoided the aggression against it, if “Abdel Nasser” had not presented the nationalization decision.
With the documents, this is a hasty conclusion: Egypt was not allowed to aspire to acquire its national decision by nationalization, or without nationalization.
The World Bank’s refusal to finance the construction of the High Dam was not the main reason for the actual nationalization of the Suez Canal and the backlash.
Since the occupation of Egypt, he has looked forward to the day when he regains national pride and the ability to defend his original rights.
The idea of nationalization was not invented by “Abdel Nasser”, nor did it suddenly occur to him.
Before “July” there were scattered calls that were included, sometimes, from studies that took this step, but it was closer to dreams and distant dreams.
No one would have really imagined that this day would come. Even most of those who asked for nationalization before July could not bear the surprise when “Abdel Nasser” told them, as he prepared to announce his decision, fearing the repercussions of his behavior.
After the Suez challenge, Egypt emerged as a regional superpower, and its capital, Cairo, became one of the international hubs, which cannot be ignored.
Egypt has gained its leadership roles in Africa with clarity of its policies and its ability to initiate and support the liberation of the continent, and it has gained exceptional weights in its third world by inspiring that a developing country faced an almost impossible challenge and won it. .
The legacy of modern history resides in public memory.
In a sigh, the unity of public sentiments was confirmed by deep concern for the canal’s fate and future, or by the overwhelming joy of floating the rogue ship with the least possible losses by Egyptian hands, first or foremost. any last. bill.
In the words of correspondent “C”. that. “From the place of the event, the moment the boat moved after floating:” The celebrations have already started. The Egyptians congratulate each other with a word of congratulations. “
This was a manifestation of the unity of public sentiment, which has been confirmed twice in recent history.
Once nationalizing the canal and the Suez War that followed, and again crossing the bridges over the canal in the October War to recapture the Sinai, which was occupied in (1967) by force of arms. On both occasions, the symbolism of the channel was confirmed, as well as its strategic and economic importance in the public imagination. The difference between the two moments is that, in the first, Egypt has invested politically in what inspired it to the third world in terms of defiance and resistance, and advanced to lead the third world, while in the second, politics wasted the United States championship. weapons, and their functions were greatly marginalized, leaving their positions to Israel and other countries besides Israel in Africa, the Arab world, East Asia and Latin America.
Around the canal, a new opportunity is emerging on the political horizon that cannot be missed in the construction of a more coherent regional and internal position.
What President Abdel-Fattah El-Sisi declared on the bank of the canal, with all its symbolism, that “the waters of the Nile are a red line” without excluding military action “and those who want to be judged” to deter any injustice Against the right of the Egyptians to the waters of the Nile seemed a life preserver of remarkable development that responds to the concern of the public overgrowth.
This deterrence statement may help move the merger dossier, which has been in place for ten years in continued Ethiopian procrastination, given the intolerable consequences of military action for security and stability in the Nile Valley, Horn of Africa. and the Red Sea. strategy. It is no longer possible for the great powers to sit in the spectator seats, while Egypt and Sudan are exposed to an existential threat.
There is a broad national consensus on the “Nilo” and “Canal” archives that are advertised in public forums and on the social network.
This deserves a review of regional policies with a spirit of initiative and a reassessment of the different positions, who are with us and who are against us, and that the Egyptian roles are consistent with the bets on them in the Arab world.
It also deserves another review of the internal situation with political and media openness and improving the archives of public liberties and human rights to ensure the unity of the Egyptian will, at any cost, on firm and solid bases in the face of any potential. storms.
* Egyptian writer and journalist
Subscribe to «News» on YouTube here
