مقاله اسفندیار خدایی که امروز در مجله "مدرن دیپلماسی" منتشر شد
Israel’s Proposed Canal is not a Threat to China but an Opportunity for Trade DiversificationBy: Esfandiar Khodaee
Dr. Neda Helmy’s recent article in Modern Diplomacy argues that an alternative trade route through Israel, bypassing the Suez Canal, would be detrimental to China’s interests.
Dr. Neda Helmy’s recent
article in Modern Diplomacy argues that an alternative trade route through Israel, bypassing the Suez Canal, would be detrimental to China’s interests. According to her perspective, such a project would increase China’s dependence on Israel, a close U.S. ally, and weaken its strategic position. However, this argument is based on a misunderstanding of China’s geopolitical strategy, particularly its long-standing approach to economic diversification.
Diversification: The Core of China’s Global StrategyChina’s foreign policy, particularly in trade and energy security, is built on diversification. The country has always sought to avoid dependence on a single route, supplier, or strategic partner. A clear example of this is China’s approach to energy imports. Despite U.S. sanctions, China has continued purchasing Iranian oil to maintain a balanced energy portfolio. Similarly, China has resisted Western pressure to cut energy ties with Russia during the Ukraine conflict, ensuring that no single country or alliance can dictate its access to essential resources.
This same logic applies to trade routes. If a new Israeli canal is built, it does not automatically undermine China’s interests. Instead, it provides an additional option that reduces reliance on the Suez Canal, much as China seeks multiple energy suppliers to avoid overdependence on any one country. Far from being a strategic threat, an alternative route enhances China’s flexibility and resilience in global trade.
The Misinterpretation of Egypt’s PositionDr. Helmy’s argument also assumes that Egypt will become weaker if an Israeli canal diverts shipping traffic from Suez, making Cairo more vulnerable to Western pressure. This assumption is flawed. If European trade shifts to the Israeli canal, Egypt will likely strengthen its economic and political ties with China to compensate for lost revenue. Rather than losing leverage, Egypt may become even more dependent on China as a key trade and investment partner, further solidifying their strategic alignment.
In fact, China’s influence in Egypt has been steadily increasing. Beijing has invested heavily in Egypt’s infrastructure, including the Suez Canal Economic Zone. Given this trend, it is unlikely that Egypt would sacrifice its deepening relationship with China just because of Western pressure. On the contrary, Egypt’s need for strong trade partners could push it closer to Beijing.
Who Controls the Canal? The Real QuestionThe only scenario in which an Israeli canal could pose a challenge to China is if it were weaponized by the United States and Israel to restrict Beijing’s trade. However, such an aggressive move would not be easy to justify or sustain, given that the canal’s economic success would depend on open access for global shipping. China, with its economic weight, would have the diplomatic and financial leverage to ensure that it retains access to both routes.
It is crucial to recognize that China does not see the world in zero-sum terms. It does not oppose new trade routes simply because they are built by U.S. allies. Instead, Beijing adapts to global shifts by ensuring that it has multiple avenues to secure its economic interests. A second canal does not replace the Suez Canal; it complements it, giving China more—not fewer—options.
Conclusion: A Flawed PremiseDr. Helmy’s article overstates the risks to China while ignoring the benefits. By applying the same strategic logic that guides its energy security policies, China is likely to view a second canal as an opportunity rather than a threat. Instead of weakening China, it could further solidify China’s role in global trade while strengthening...
Source ادامه مطلب
