China in the Suez Canal

Google Earth image of Suez Canal

Interesting report from Middle East Institute _"China’s growing maritime presence in Egypt's ports and the Suez Canal"

In recent years, China's presence in Egypt's strategic ports has grown noticeably. This includes the involvement of both private and state-owned Chinese companies in the partial acquisition, development, and operation of Egyptian seaports and terminals, with concessions of up to 38 years. In addition to a Chinese state-owned company holding stakes in two ports at the northern and southern entrances of the Suez Canal, a private Chinese firm also operates two strategic ports on Egypt’s Mediterranean coast and is developing and will eventually operate a third at Abu Qir Naval Base. This coincides with significant Chinese investments in the Suez Canal Economic Zone, a 455-sq-km special economic zone located along a maritime corridor of vital importance to global trade. While China's role in Egyptian ports reflects Beijing’s growing ambitions in the region, the opacity of the Sino-Egyptian agreements and the blurry lines between China's commercial ports and its military aspirations raise questions about the potential implications.

Read the whole thing. China is picking up its "presence" in a lot of key chokepoints of world trade.

Chokepoint Attack: Small Rocket Attack on Merchant Ship in Suez Canal

UNSI News has the video and more at "Video: Terrorists Launch Rocket Attack at Commercial Ship in Suez Canal". Here's the YouTube video:

All this does is raise the cost of going through the Suez Canal. Will outriders be needed to clear the shoreline of "heroes" like these?

Most merchant hulls contain a great deal of empty space, which means that an attack like this is really just an annoyance. If these "warriors" had hit a container full of Air Jordans, well, then they would have crossed some sort of "red line."

More seriously, this sort of thuggery needs to be quashed.

In a hurry.

Somali Pirates: Iran's Boasts

I'm sure the Iranian navy is doing mostly valiant things in protecting Iranian shipping from Somali pirates, but the official Iranian media needs to ratchet down its enthusiasm a couple of notches.

For example, this release from Fars News Agency, Somali Pirates' Attack Repelled by Iranian Navy:

The Iranian Navy's fleet of warships dispatched to the Gulf of Aden fought back a group of somali pirates who intended to hijack two Iranian trade vessels.

The VALHLH ship was attacked by three pirate boats in the Suez Canal, but was saved thanks to the timely measure taken by the Iranian Navy warships and continued on its way to Bandar Abbas without suffering any loss or dely.

In another incident pirates attacked an Iranian commercial ship, Nabi, with four speedboats but were forced to retreat because of the heavy fire of the Iranian Navy's special operation team.

Nabi had departed Kharg Island for Port of Ain Sukhna (Sokhna) in Egypt.

The Iranian Navy's 13th fleet of warships, comprised of Tonb and Delvar vessels, was deployed to the pirate-infested waters of the Gulf of Aden in 2011 in a bid to guard Iranian merchant containers and oil-tankers. (emphasis added)

Taking everything else as true (for the purposes of this post), I suspect that the highlighted alleged attack in the "Suez Canal" probably took place in the the Red Sea or near the entrance to the Red Sea or somewhere else instead of in the canal itself. Probably just an overeager Iranian PAO.

If it occurred where the Iranians say it did, that would be big new. Much bigger than a press release from Fars.

Iranian Ships to Enter Mediterranean

Iranian Navy Ship Kharg (AOR-431), an oiler/ammuntion ship

For the first time since 1979, it appears that a couple of Iranian Navy ships will enter the Mediterranean via the Suez Canal (see here where it is reported they entered the Suez Canal on 22 Feb):

Two Iranian naval ships have entered Egypt's Suez Canal and are heading towards the Mediterranean, a canal official said.

"They entered the canal at 5:45am," the official told Reuters news agency on Tuesday.

The two vessels, Alvand, a patrol frigate and Kharg, a supply ship, are the first naval vessels to go through the canal since Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution, after which diplomatic ties between Egypt and Iran were strained.

Egypt's ruling military council, facing its first diplomatic challenge since taking power on February 11, approved the vessels' passage through the canal.

The canal is a vital global trading route and a major source of revenue for the Egyptian authorities.

Israel takes a "grave view" of the passage of the ships.

On Sunday, after a weekly meeting of his cabinet, Binyamin Netanyahu , Israeli prime minister denounced the ships' arrival in the region as an Iranian power play.

And last week, the prospect of the Suez crossing was described by Avigdor Lieberman, Israel's far-right foreign minister, as a "provocation" by Iran.

But an Iranian diplomat said that, "This will be a routine visit, within international law, in line with the co-operation between Iran and Syria, who have strategic ties.

"The ships will spend a few days in Syrian ports for training purposes, having already visited several countries including Oman and Saudi Arabia," the diplomat added.

Alvand, a Iranian frigate,

The prospect of these ships making it through the canal and heading for their announced destination of Syria has many people at increasing flail levels, especially the Israelis.

The ships themselves are a small frigate and INS Kharg a fleet oiler/ammuntion ship that has served as the flag ship of the Iranian Navy (see USNI Guide to Combat Fleets of the World by Eric Wertheim here).

The ships themselves pose little threat to anyone, unless, in a repeat of a famous incident in the Canal's past, they drop mines along the way, as Libya is suspected of doing in 1984. That incident, which damaged 18 or so ships was denounced at the time by Iran's Ayatollah Khomeni, though praised at lower levels in Iran (see here). Given that record and the scrutiny that will be given these ships, a mining mission seems unlikely.

No, the concern is that these vessels, both "warships," may be carrying some cargo dangerous to Israel to Israel's enemies in Syria. Presumably, the oiler, being larger may be carrying a large amount of something that would improve the military position of anti-Israel forces. Perhaps a batch of rockets? New warheads of some sort?

Unlike merchant ships, it is unlikely that the threat of force would allow these ships to be searched. Further, in this particular chess game, it seems as likely as not that there is nothing on these ships.Does it matter? The Iranian goal is to set a precedent - to allow for the free movement of its naval vessels on the high seas to a sovereign nation that is not under blockade. That sovereign nation being, of course, Syria.

There is that the magic word "blockade."

As you may recall, Israel has indicted ships attempting to carry supplies into Gaza. As noted in an earlier post (), this seems to be a legal blockade of Gaza. There is an interesting piece by a Israeli legal scholar Ruth Lapidoth, The Legal Basis of Israel's Naval Blockade of Gaza, which lays out the argument that the blockade of Gaza is perfectly legal under international law.The piece cites the San Remo Manual as setting out the appropriate rules for parties to an armed conflict:

SECTION II : METHODS OF WARFARE
Blockade
93. A blockade shall be declared and notified to all belligerents and neutral States. 94. The declaration shall specify the commencement, duration, location, and extent of the blockade and the period within which vessels of neutral States may leave the blockaded coastline.
95. A blockade must be effective. The question whether a blockade is effective is a question of fact.
96. The force maintaining the blockade may be stationed at a distance determined by military requirements. 97. A blockade may be enforced and maintained by a combination of legitimate methods and means of warfare provided this combination does not result in acts inconsistent with the rules set out in this document. 98. Merchant vessels believed on reasonable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be captured. Merchant vessels which, after prior warning, clearly resist capture may be attacked. 99. A blockade must not bar access to the ports and coasts of neutral States. 100. A blockade must be applied impartially to the vessels of all States. 101. The cessation, temporary lifting, re-establishment, extension or other alteration of a blockade must be declared and notified as in paragraphs 93 and 94. 102. The declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited if: (a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival; or(b) the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade. 103. If the civilian population of the blockaded territory is inadequately provided with food and other objects essential for its survival, the blockading party must provide for free passage of such foodstuffs and other essential supplies, subject to: (a) the right to prescribe the technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted; and(b) the condition that the distribution of such supplies shall be made under the local supervision of a Protecting Power or a humanitarian organization which offers guarantees of impartiality, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross. 104. The blockading belligerent shall allow the passage of medical supplies for the civilian population or for the wounded and sick members of armed forces, subject to the right to prescribe technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted.

A possible route from the north end of the Suez Canal to Syria

Professor Lapidoth finds that these rules applied to a blockade of Gaza.

Syria, on the other hand, may be a different kettle of fish. As the Professor notes in her piece, the definition of "armed conflict" that justifies a blockade does not require a formal declaration of war in these times. Certainly, Israel and Syria have not been peaceful neighbors but the imposition of a blockade on Syrian ports is, without a doubt, an act of war that may bring consequences that Israel and the rest of the world mat not be willing to pay at this time.

So, I expect that a war of words will continue and these ships will be allowed their "peaceful" transit in the Mediterranean this time. You may count on them being closely watched by every one with a stake  in this iteration of Iran's war with Israel.

Egypt: Threat to Suez Canal Raises Concerns

Energy and shipping security issues arise as Egypt's situation muddies - see here:

Crude-oil prices surged 3.4%, to above $89 a barrel.

"That's the most immediate concern, what's happening in Egypt and how that might affect oil prices if the Suez Canal gets closed, which is a real possibility," said Ed Cowart, lead manager of Eagle Asset Management's Large Cap Value and All Cap Value and Equity Income Strategies. He noted if the canal is closed, it could add substantially to the travel time for oil to get from the Middle East to the West.

Shares of tankers and shippers climbed as investors bet on a shutdown of the Suez Canal. Frontline jumped 8.5%, Overseas Shipholding leapt 5.9% and General Maritime advanced 6.9%.

As set out by the U.S. Energy Information Agency, the Suez Canal is a major energy chokepoint:

The Suez Canal is located in Egypt, and connects the Red Sea and Gulf of Suez with the Mediterranean Sea, covering 120 miles. Petroleum (both crude oil and refined products) accounted for 16 percent of Suez cargos, measured by cargo tonnage, in 2009. An estimated 1.0 million bbl/d of crude oil and refined petroleum products flowed northbound through the Suez Canal to the Mediterranean Sea in 2009, while 0.8 million bbl/d travelled southbound into the Red Sea. This represents a decline from 2008, when 1.6 million bbl/d of oil transited northbound to Europe and other developed economies.

Almost 35,000 ships transited the Suez Canal in 2009, of which about 10 percent were petroleum tankers. With only 1,000 feet at its narrowest point, the Canal is unable to handle the VLCC (Very Large Crude Carriers) and ULCC (Ultra Large Crude Carriers) class crude oil tankers. The Suez Canal Authority is continuing enhancement and enlargement projects on the canal, and extended the depth to 66 ft in 2010 to allow over 60 percent of all tankers to use the Canal.
***
Closure of the Suez Canal and the SUMED Pipeline would divert tankers around the southern tip of Africa, the Cape of Good Hope, adding 6,000 miles to transit.

Additional distance raises shipping costs and slows delivery - possibly leading to temporary shortages.

A graphic presenting the alternative to the Suez Canal from here:

Hat tip: MDB from his comment to a post below.

Egypt nabs Al-Qaida-linked terror cell plotting Suez attacks

Attacks in the Suez Canal? Prospective terrorists caught, as reported in Egypt nabs Al-Qaida-linked terror cell plotting Suez attacks:

Egyptian authorities have arrested 25 al-Qaida-linked terrorists on suspicion of plotting attacks on oil pipelines and ships crossing the Suez Canal.

The Egyptian Interior Ministry said the new cell was led by a Palestinian and included 24 Egyptians, mostly engineers and technicians.

They planned to use mobile phones to detonate explosives against ships crossing the Canal, the statement said.

The group learned how to make car bombs through communicating with al-Qaida terrorists on jihadi Web sites, according to an Interior Ministry statement.

Last year it was reported that Egypt was planning to place cameras along the Canal:

The Suez Canal is Egypt’s third largest source of revenue after tourism and remittances. Currently about 7.5 percent of global trade passes through it.

More on the Canal from EIA World Oil Transit Chokepoints:

The Suez Canal is located in Egypt, and connects the Red Sea and Gulf of Suez with the Mediterranean Sea. The Canal is one of the world’s greatest engineering feats covering 120 miles. Oil shipments from the Persian Gulf travel through the Canal primarily to European ports, but also to the United States. In 2006, an estimated 3.9 million bbl/d of oil flowed northbound through the Suez Canal to the Mediterranean, while 0.6 million bbl/d travelled southbound into the Red Sea.

Over 3,000 oil tankers pass through the Suez Canal annually, and represent around 25 percent of the Canal’s total revenues. With only 1,000 feet at its narrowest point, the Canal is unable to handle large tankers. The Suez Canal Authority (SCA) has discussed widening and deepening the Canal to accommodate VLCCs and Ultra Large Crude Carriers (ULCC).

The 200-mile long Sumed Pipeline, or Suez-Mediterranean Pipeline, also provides a route between the Red and Mediterranean Seas by crossing the northern region of Egypt from the Ain Sukhna to the Sidi Kerir Terminal. The pipeline provides an alternative to the Suez Canal, and can transport 3.1 million bbl/d of crude oil. In 2006, nearly all of Saudi Arabia’s northbound shipments (approximately 2.3 million bbl/d of crude) were transported through the Sumed pipeline. The pipeline is owned by Arab Petroleum Pipeline Co., a joint venture between EGPC, Saudi Aramco, Abu Dhabi’s ADNOC, and Kuwaiti companies.

Closure of the Suez Canal and the Sumed Pipeline would divert tankers around the southern tip of Africa, the Cape of Good Hope, adding 6,000 miles to transit time.