On 22 April, I published an article in Al-Ahram Weekly titled “Strategic Dilemmas of the Suez Canal,” which laid bare a fundamental transformation in the nature of global trade and the canal’s position within it.
The article argued that while the Suez Canal remains geographically indispensable, its broader strategic relevance is no longer guaranteed. This distinction between physical necessity and systemic indispensability captures the core dilemma now facing one of the world’s most critical maritime corridors.
For decades, the Suez Canal derived its strength from a simple and powerful logic: it offered the shortest and most efficient route between Europe and Asia. But the events of 2026, particularly the disruptions in the Gulf and the resulting reconfiguration of shipping patterns, have revealed the limits of this traditional model.
Efficiency alone is no longer sufficient. In an era defined by geopolitical volatility, digital vulnerability, and supply chain fragility, the true measure of a trade route lies in its ability to provide reliability and predictability.
This is the strategic dilemma in its clearest form: the canal cannot rely solely on geography to sustain its centrality, yet it operates within a global system increasingly shaped by forces beyond geography including financial systems, technological infrastructures, and competing logistical networks.
It is precisely in response to this dilemma that the proposal to establish a Suez Canal Partners Forum emerges – not as a routine diplomatic initiative, but as a strategic solution designed to reposition the canal within the evolving international order.
The idea behind the forum is rooted in a fundamental shift in thinking. Rather than treating the canal as a passive corridor that must simply be protected from external threats, the proposal envisions it as an active platform capable of shaping the conditions of its own relevance. In other words, the objective is not merely to defend the canal’s role, but to reconstruct it, transforming it into what might be called a “sovereign platform for producing certainty” within a fragmented global system.
At its core, the Suez Canal Partners Forum would function as a structured, institutionalised mechanism for international engagement. It would bring together major users of the canal such as the European Union, China, India, Japan, the United States, and the key Gulf states within a regular consultative framework focused on shared priorities, including navigational safety, supply chain resilience, and sustainable maritime practices. Crucially, the forum would be designed to operate away from contentious political disputes, emphasising functional cooperation over geopolitical rivalry.
Its strategic importance lies in its ability to address the canal’s central vulnerability: its exposure to external uncertainties that it cannot control alone. By embedding the canal within a network of shared international interests, the forum would effectively transform its stability into a collective concern.
This approach reflects a broader concept that has gained prominence in recent years: the transition from “control over passage” to “control over the conditions of passage.” Power, in this sense, is no longer defined by the ability to manage traffic through a route, but by the capacity to shape the rules, standards, and expectations that govern its use.
The forum would provide Egypt with a practical tool to exercise this form of power. Through it, Cairo could help set international standards in areas such as maritime cybersecurity, environmental sustainability, and logistical transparency, thereby reinforcing the canal’s reputation as a reliable and trusted route in an uncertain world.
Equally important would be the forum’s role in managing the complexities of a multipolar international system. The global order is no longer dominated by a single hegemonic power but characterised by competing centres of influence with overlapping interests. In such an environment, the risk is not only conflict but also forced alignment where states are pressured to choose sides in broader geopolitical rivalries.
The Suez Canal Partners Forum offers a way to navigate this challenge through what can be described as “multi-alignment diplomacy”. By engaging with all major actors simultaneously and integrating their interests within the canal’s ecosystem, Egypt could avoid being drawn into binary alignments while maximising the benefits of diverse partnerships. This approach would transform neutrality from a passive stance into an active strategy and one that generates value and enhances strategic autonomy.
Beyond its diplomatic dimension, the forum also carries significant economic implications. One of its key functions would be to facilitate the distribution of industrial and logistical investments within the Suez Canal Economic Zone. By allocating different sectors to different international partners – advanced manufacturing with Europe, industrial production with China, and clean energy initiatives with regional and global players – Egypt could create a dense web of interdependent interests along the canal’s corridor.
This strategy has a clear objective: to ensure that the canal’s stability becomes materially embedded in the economic calculations of multiple global powers. When diverse actors have tangible investments tied to the canal, any disruption to its operations becomes costly not only for Egypt, but for all stakeholders involved. In this way, the forum would help generate what might be called “mutual protection through shared interest.”
The environmental dimension should not be overlooked either. As global shipping moves towards decarbonisation, the Suez Canal has an opportunity to position itself as a leading “green corridor”. Through the proposed forum, Egypt could collaborate with international partners and organisations to define environmental standards for maritime transit, thereby enhancing both the canal’s competitiveness and its global legitimacy.
In essence, the Suez Canal Partners Forum addresses the central question raised in the earlier article: how can the canal remain indispensable in a world where indispensability is no longer guaranteed?
The answer lies not in resisting change, but in shaping it. By building a network of partnerships, embedding diverse interests, and actively participating in the governance of global trade systems, the canal can move beyond its traditional role as a transit route to become a platform for coordination, standard-setting, and strategic balance.
The writer is a fellow of the National Defence College at the Military Academy for Postgraduate and Strategic Studies and head of the International Relations Department and Energy Studies Programme at Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 30 April, 2026 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly
Short link: