In 2010, the Mediterranean once again became the scene of war. Many times in its history, the region has seen animosities arise, with those controlling the Mediterranean being ultimately victorious in World War I and in World War II. It was in the summer of 2010 that the Freedom Flotilla sailed towards Gaza, carrying humanitarian relief to this besieged territory. However, it never reached its destination. Instead of offering relief, it was intercepted by the Israelis, who killed some of the activists on board, sparking off international outrage and a regional crisis. The history of the Mediterranean is inexorably linked with that of the Red Sea. For centuries, ships were able to sail from the one to the other, using the Nile as a conduit. The first canal linking the two seas was dug in the time of the ancient Egyptian Pharaoh Senusert III in around 1823 BCE. This king of the 12th Dynasty connected the two seas by a canal passing through the city of Bubastis. Remnants of this canal are still visible in some areas close to the current Suez Canal. Another canal built in antiquity was that of the Pharaoh Nekau of the 26th Dynasty. Then Darius I, whose Persian forces occupied Egypt in the sixth century BCE, dug another canal, with the aim of facilitating transportation within his empire. Alexander the Great, who defeated the Persians, also planned to dig a canal connecting the Mediterranean and the Red Sea. So did Amr Ibn Al-Aas, the Arab conqueror of Egypt nine centuries later. In modern times, the idea of linking the two seas became more sophisticated. Instead of linking them through narrow channels connecting the Nile to the Red Sea, the French came up with a grander idea: why not connect the two seas directly by digging a canal north of Suez, passing through the Bitter Lakes, and reaching the Mediterranean at the point now known as Port Said? The idea was first suggested by the scientists who came to Egypt during the French expedition of 1798 to 1801, but a miscalculation led them to the belief that the Red Sea was higher than the Mediterranean, so they abandoned the project. Later calculations proved that the project was feasible, and French officials tried to get the then Egyptian ruler, Mohamed Ali Pasha, to agree to the project, but he was astute enough to reject it. If the canal were to be created, Egypt would be so coveted that its future would be in danger, the viceroy of Egypt reckoned at the time. Mohamed Ali's offspring were less scrupulous, however. Said Pasha agreed to the overtures of the French, led by Ferdinand de Lesseps, and the project finally got off the ground. Just as Mohamed Ali predicted, however, the future Suez Canal eventually brought Egypt fiscal ruin followed by foreign occupation. Soon after Said Pasha came to power on 14 July 1854, de Lesseps was able to secure a 99-year lease for the future Canal. In 1858, the company he put together managed to sell 400,000 shares in the Canal for 500 francs apiece. Ismail Pasha, who became viceroy in January 1863, was also enthusiastic about the project, and he even created a governorate, or provincial administration, for the area surrounding the Canal. The first governor of the Suez Canal, Ismail Hamdi Bey, was appointed in December 1863. Over the following years, nearly one million Egyptian workers had to remove 74 million cubic metres of soil to form the canal's bed. Nearly one out of every eight workers died in the process. About 369 million French francs were spent to create the 195km-long water way. One of the biggest problems facing the builders of the canal was the lack of drinking water. They arranged for two fleets of fishing boats that used to operate in Lake Manzala to bring fresh water from Damietta. The opening ceremony, held on 16 November 1869, was the largest international event of the year. Every effort was made to ensure its success. Fruit was brought from the Delta, ice from Cairo and fish from Alexandria. It is said that 500 cooks were hired from Marseilles, Genoa, and Trieste to cater for the party thrown for the 6,000 dignitaries attending the opening, including the empress Eugenie of France. On the main reviewing stand were the khedive of Egypt, de Lesseps, the empress Eugenie and the Austrian emperor Franz Josef. Among the Egyptian dignitaries present were crown prince Omar Tawfik, prince Touson, Sherif Pasha and Noubar Pasha. Ismail Pasha told the local governors to bring some of the inhabitants of the area with their families to attend the celebration. As the bands played and the flotilla carrying the dignitaries cruised down the canal, the latter enjoyed the colourful scene of thousands of Egyptian families in their traditional dress standing along the course of the canal and cheering as the boats sailed by. After lunch, the music and singing resumed. Then the official ceremony began. The French national anthem was played in honour of the empress Eugenie. Since Egypt did not have an anthem of its own at the time, Sheikh Ibrahim Al-Sakka delivered a short speech blessing the day and all those present. This was followed by a song performed by Christian clerics, with Eugenie apparently chiming in for good measure. The story of what happened afterwards is well known: the Canal became an international bone of contention. The British and the French sent representatives to force Egypt to pay off the debts it had incurred in building the canal, and eventually Egypt came under 70 years of British occupation. Today, a new story is unfolding, one that contains just as much contention and promise as the one seen a century-and-a-half ago. A scheme to develop the banks of the Suez Canal has come to light, being the centrepiece of the “Nahda Project” billed by the current government as a way to put the country back on its feet. According to the planners of this scheme, the governorates of Port Said, Ismailia and Suez will become centres of technology, commerce, communications, and tourism once the scheme gets off the ground. We have been told that there will be a “technology valley” in Ismailia, that a new tunnel will be built under the canal, and that an industrial zone will spring up on both sides of the canal, to be synergised by the establishment of a world-class technological university. To the east of Port Said, planners envisage a dock 1,200 metres long and 500 metres wide capable of providing maritime services of the first order. There will also be a brand new wave-breaker and dock walls, railways and telecommunications equipment, and an ample supply of fresh water. An industrial zone, we have been told, will emerge between Suez and Ain Sokhna where factories will produce machinery, tractors, consumer goods, fertilisers, carpets, textiles and building supplies. All of the above will serve to extract Sinai from its doldrums, giving it jobs and hope and generally ensuring its prosperity. Of course, any attention given to Sinai is to be encouraged. This part of Egypt has suffered from decades of neglect, and Sinai is a place where people don't so much go to court, as set up courts within their own clans. As a result, Sinai is still distant from the rest of the country, and it has been allowed to become disconnected from the rest of Egypt. It should also be borne in mind that the Bedouin of Sinai want more communication with the outside world and more modernity. They all have cell-phones and satellite dishes, and for transportation they rely on trucks just as much as they used to rely on camels. One specialist on Sinai affairs knows of a Bedouin man who drives a taxi in the morning and then comes back home at night to change into his traditional garb and work as a judge, settling disputes within his tribe. If Sinai and the Suez Canal are developed along the lines mentioned above, this will be no mean achievement. It is time to reclaim the desert as an inhabitable area and as a venue for business and industry. If successful, this will not only change the political map of Egypt, but also that of the region as well. However, we should be frank. A scheme of such immense dimensions is not something to be undertaken lightly. It has to be conducted transparently, and the entire nation should be convinced of its usefulness. This is not yet the case. Indeed, whenever the Suez Canal development scheme is mentioned, suspicions arise. Maritime transport expert Mahfouz Taha has even voiced concerns that the canal itself may have become obsolete by 2020. Politician Mohamed Abul-Ghar claims that the scheme is potentially disastrous, and he has asked why no tenders have been made or an international competition held to offer alternative approaches to the scheme. Historian Tarek Al-Beshri says the scheme may undermine Egypt's sovereignty and separate Sinai from the rest of the country. Journalist Salah Montasser wonders why the government is trying to rush legislation favouring the scheme through the Shura Council, when so much is at stake and when everyone knows that a scheme of these dimensions could influence many generations to come. Political scientist Hassan Nafaa even wants the sponsors of the scheme placed on trial, for compromising national security. Writer Amr Abdel-Samie says that experts must explain such mega-projects to the public and gauge the nation's reactions. Hamdeen Sabahi, the former presidential candidate, says that the Popular Current, of which he is the leader, is preparing an alternative project. Amr Moussa, another former candidate, wants an Egyptian-owned holding company to take over the development. Faced with such opposition, the government organised a conference earlier this month to discuss the matter. The prime minister promised that the project would not involve the outright sale of property, and that all sales would be in the form of 50-year leases. According to Abdallah Al-Jahama, a Sinai tribal chieftain, if the project is started it must be finished, in comments that recall what happened with ill-fated projects like the Peace Canal and the Arish railway line. For its part, the government insists that the scheme is good not only for the country, but also for Sinai. Tarek Wafik, the minister of transport and communications, says that the scheme will help develop Sinai and strengthen its bonds with the rest of the country. Whatever the details may be, it is important that we do not throw away a good idea as a result of political differences or misgivings over security. We should use this opportunity to show that we are capable of acting transparently and of achieving consensus on matters that are not just crucial for us, but are also vital for future generations.
