The Suez Canal and the Constantinople Convention
Peter, the Egyptian decision to let the Iranian warships pass through the Suez Canal is actually the right one, legally speaking. Egypt is bound by the 1888 Constantinople Convention:
ARTICLE I The Suez Maritime Canal shall always be free and open, in time of war as in time of peace, to every vessel of commerce or of war, without distinction of flag. Consequently, the High Contracting Parties agree not in any way to interfere with the free use of the Canal, in time of war as in time of peace. The Canal shall never be subjected to the exercise of the right of blockade.
That really couldn't be clearer. The world is now demanding that Egypt honor all of its treaty agreements. This is one of them. It is certainly a provocation, but that's between Iran and Israel. Egypt's just doing what it has to do. Every time it has attempted to abrogate that treaty it has ended badly for Egypt. I can understand why it would not be eager to get into a diplomatic dustup with Iran over this at something of a sensitive moment.
It's a deeply worrying situation, but it's worrying because Iran is obviously trying to drive Israel nuts, not because Egypt is upholding the treaty. As to that, it really hasn't much choice.
- Comment (17)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments :
Re: The Suez Canal and the Constantinople Convention
Dear Claire,
Two points:
1. Thank you. I feel better. Sort of.
2. The Constantinople Convention of 1888? How do you know stuff like that?
Fondly, as ever,
Peter
Oct '10
Re: The Suez Canal and the Constantinople Convention
Peter Robinson: Dear Claire,
Two points:
1. Thank you. I feel better. Sort of.
2. The Constantinople Convention of 1888? How do you know stuff like that?
Fondly, as ever,
Peter · Feb 18 at 6:52pm
Regarding point #2: my thoughts exactly.
Claire,
When you said that previous attempts to avoid its treaty obligations has hurt Egypt, did that include the problem back in the 1950s with Britain and France? I vaguely remember something about Egypt blocking their ships going through the canal, or something like that.
Jun '10
Re: The Suez Canal and the Constantinople Convention
Constantinople Convention? Constantinople fell in 1453. Odd name for a treaty negotiated, one would assume, with Turkey as the host nation.
Jul '10
Re: The Suez Canal and the Constantinople Convention
Istanbul. Not Constantinople.
Dec '10
Re: The Suez Canal and the Constantinople Convention
Claire can correct me if I am wrong: Constantinople kept its name among Westerners until Ataturk. He insisted that other countries use the Turkish name for Turkey's main city. Fortunately, this gave us the classic pop number "Istanbul (Not Constantinople)".
This is the same as China deciding in the 1980s that Westerners had to change their transliterations for Chinese words, and Peking became Beijing.
Dec '10
Re: The Suez Canal and the Constantinople Convention
Claire, what happens if the Iranian naval ships decide to make an impromptu port call in Gaza?
Jan '11
Re: The Suez Canal and the Constantinople Convention
Peter Robinson: Dear Claire,
Two points:
1. Thank you. I feel better. Sort of.
2. The Constantinople Convention of 1888? How do you know stuff like that?
Fondly, as ever,
Peter · Feb 18 at 6:52pm
RE: #2 Claire is steeped in the area's history, to ask how she knew that is probably like asking the rest of us "How do you know Democrats are lunkheads?". Not to take anything away from Claire, but there's this neat thing called Wikipedia which acts as a pretty good jumping off point on a lot of matters (trust but verify). I happened to look up the Suez Canal a few weeks ago when after watching a program on the Panama Canal my wife asked if the Suez Canal had locks (it doesn't).
Dec '10
Re: The Suez Canal and the Constantinople Convention
Pike Bishop
I happened to look up the Suez Canal a few weeks ago when after watching a program on the Panama Canal my wife asked if the Suez Canal had locks (it doesn't). · Feb 18 at 7:40pm
Not surprising. Even in Israel, just a few hundred miles away, you'll have trouble finding lox, not to mention a bagel to put it on.
Jan '11
Re: The Suez Canal and the Constantinople Convention
Stuart Creque
Pike Bishop
I happened to look up the Suez Canal a few weeks ago when after watching a program on the Panama Canal my wife asked if the Suez Canal had locks (it doesn't). · Feb 18 at 7:40pm
Not surprising. Even in Israel, just a few hundred miles away, you'll have trouble finding lox, not to mention a bagel to put it on. · Feb 18 at 7:48pm
Boy, do I miss a good bagel - nearest is about 120 miles away in Vegas.
Oct '10
Re: The Suez Canal and the Constantinople Convention
Pike Bishop
Stuart Creque
Pike Bishop
I happened to look up the Suez Canal a few weeks ago when after watching a program on the Panama Canal my wife asked if the Suez Canal had locks (it doesn't). · Feb 18 at 7:40pm
Not surprising. Even in Israel, just a few hundred miles away, you'll have trouble finding lox, not to mention a bagel to put it on. · Feb 18 at 7:48pm
Boy, do I miss a good bagel - nearest is about 120 miles away in Vegas. · Feb 18 at 7:54pm
Good bialys in Vegas too!
Aug '10
Re: The Suez Canal and the Constantinople Convention
I note that the High Contracting Parties bound by the Constantinople Convention don't include Egypt, Israel,the US, Iran, China, India....or anyone else that wasn't a European imperial power of the 19th Century that soon enough after got caught up in the Great War.Indeed,It looks like many of the States most directly interested in the use or abuse of the Canal didn't even exist as legal entities in 1888. I understand it to be the case that Iranian warships have not used the Canal since 1979, so I wonder how relevant the Convention has been in the last 30 years or more?
Re: The Suez Canal and the Constantinople Convention
Well, honestly, I didn't. I've been watching this story for the past few days, and somewhere deep in the recess of my mind was the knowledge--from studying the Suez crisis and the terms of the Camp David accords, which I did in school more than 20 years ago--that there was a 19th century treaty that was more relevant than you'd think to questions of maritime passage in the Suez. But I had to look it up to remember what it was. (Also, if you live on the Bosphorus, you know very well that modern states can't do much about old shipping conventions--we're all worried we're going to die in Istanbul because of the Montreux Convention. But that's another story.) But no, I wouldn't have had this one at my fingertips if I hadn't been following this story already and trying to remind myself of the history and legal status of the Canal.
Dec '10
Re: The Suez Canal and the Constantinople Convention
Maybe not there, but they'll need to refuel somewhere.
May '10
Re: The Suez Canal and the Constantinople Convention
Only on Ricochet. Thanks, Claire.
May '10
Re: The Suez Canal and the Constantinople Convention
Someday we'll find it, the Byzantine connection, the scoffers, the dreamers, and Claire...
I think the Constantinople Treaty was one of the chapters cut from Dreadnought. For military cost reasons. It was supposed to be stuck somewhere in the middle, like The Algeciras Conference, The Eulenberg Scandal, and the Telegraph Interview.
Jul '10
Re: The Suez Canal and the Constantinople Convention
Stuart Creque: Claire, what happens if the Iranian naval ships decide to make an impromptu port call in Gaza? · Feb 18 at 7:21pm
The harbor requires redredging anyway.
Aug '10
Re: The Suez Canal and the Constantinople Convention
So Claire .... What should we expect from Israel ? Rather, what do you predict?