What Future For Suez?

Press, Volume CVII, Issue 31543, 4 December 1967, Page 12

What Future For Suez?

Proposals for reopening the Suez Canal have so far been informal and indirect; the parties chiefly concerned, Israel and Egypt, have had no part in them. There was a suggestion that the Israeli Government might consent to the withdrawal of troops from the east bank, to allow some attempt to be made to get shipping moving again. 1116 Canal Authority claims that it could clear the waterway in three months if the Israelis would vacate their positions. Mr Eshkol replied that Israel would not oppose the reopening of the canal provided it was available for use by all nations, including Israel As for withdrawal from the east bank, the answer was “No ”. As for use of the canal by Israeli shipping, President Nasser’s answer was also “No While silting at the rate of a foot a year aggravates the salvage problem, the real question now emerging is whether the canal will ever be reopened. President Nasser says he will make no move until the Israelis abandon Sinai. Despite Western pressure, Israeli policy is to hold all the occupied territory until Egypt consents to direct peace talks. There is no sign of compromise. President Nasser is apparently content in the meantime to recoup his losses—some £7O millions a year in hard currency from tolls and tourism—from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Übya, which agreed in August to make him payments in lieu of tolls. So far these payments have been made. How long they can be continued, even out of substantial oil revenues, is another question. Clearing the waterway of sunken ships, thought to number 16, and dredging to give adequate depth, will cost a lot of money. The canal, moreover, is urgently in need of modernisation to take the larger tankers, from 240,000 tons to 275,000 tons, now being commissioned. The group of islets in the middle would have to be removed to allow these giants passageway. Before the June war, the Canal Authority had unsuccessfully sought development capital in Europe. Egypt’s credit would certainly stand no higher today. In the view of the user Powers, the task of reopening and reconstructing the canal could be undertaken only by an international consortium; and only agreement between Israel and Egypt could establish the conditions in which it might be attempted. Moreover, Egypt might have to consent to some sharing of ownership in return for capital assistance on an enormous scale. Such a change of heart in Cairo is hardly to be expected. In all the circumstances, the future of the canal must be regarded as uncertain.