The global struggle for shipping dominance

MAJOR states fighting for control over vital marine channels have ushered in a new chapter of the struggle for dominance over world trade routes.

Fundamentally, this fight is a complicated network of political influence, infrastructural development, and strategic positioning based around maintaining the arteries of world trade.

From the Middle East to Africa, the struggle for maritime supremacy is changing geopolitics and alliances in ways that can alter world trade for the next decades. Like attacks in the Red Sea lately, disruptions to maritime routes highlight the fragility of world supply lines and the vital need for safe passage.

One significant change in this continuous struggle is the grandiose Israeli project Ben Gurion Canal, meant to challenge Egypt's Suez Canal. Though the idea has been around for years, some predict that a shortcut through Gaza could cut the path.

Realised the Ben Gurion Canal would link the Red Sea to the Mediterranean Sea over the Negev Desert and the southern end of the Gulf of Aqaba. Starting at the Israeli port city of Eilat on the Red Sea, the proposed canal would pass across the Jordanian border, run through the Arabah Valley, enter the Dead Sea, and then travel northward via the Gaza Strip before reaching the Mediterranean.

This path might provide a substitute for the Suez Canal, which has experienced capacity restrictions and disruptions.

Project proponents say the canal could be a tick on China’s Belt and Road Initiative and bring significant yearly income. The dimensions of the canal are designed to exceed those of the Suez Canal, therefore guaranteeing the passage of the biggest ships in the globe.

Every one of the two lanes would have 200 metres of width and 50 metres of depth. The project's projected £77 billion cost is a large investment that fairly represents the strategic value given to marine infrastructure.

Should the Ben Gurion Canal be finished with Gaza as its ultimate port, building time and excavation expenses could be shortened. According to some observers, the war in Gaza is meant to allow the Ben Gurion Canal to be dug.

Beyond the Middle East, South Africa is another key point on the global maritime chessboard where growing tensions suggest a more fundamental strategic battle. Officially, the strain in relations is ascribed to South Africa’s growing alignment with Russia and China through BRICS as well as claims of allegedly arms transfers to Russia.

Underneath the surface, though, a more important element might be in action: a struggle for control over the Cape Sea Route, a crucial substitute for the Suez Canal, especially in view of recent Red Sea disturbances.

Home to Cape Town, the Western Cape has a special geopolitical significance since it regulates the marine traffic around Africa’s southernmost point. The DA, an opposition party with greater ideological ties to Western interests, rules the Western Cape unlike the rest of South Africa, which stays absolutely under ANC control.

This difference helps the US influence to establish itself in the province, therefore establishing it as a possible strategic asset for Washington in the case of a more general geopolitical realignment.

Western interests could try to increase their impact in the Western Cape to keep access and control over this vital shipping route as South Africa veers more into BRICS-aligned policies. Thus, Cape Town's port is a key junction in the worldwide maritime system and calls for strategic thought from every big participant.

On the other side, KwaZulu-Natal (KZN), home of Durban, the biggest port in Africa, has a somewhat different dynamic. KZN boasts a substantial Chinese commercial presence; if political fragmentation were to strike South Africa, it would inevitably veer towards closer connections with China.

Although this situation would not resemble an official "deal," political and economic changes could result in a de facto split whereby Western interests concentrate power in the Western Cape while China increases its impact over KZN.

This result would produce a new global economic scene where South Africa’s two most important marine hubs coincide with opposing superpowers, therefore reflecting the larger US-China competition. Investment in port infrastructure and logistics by Chinese companies in KZN reinforces this trend even more.

Macro-wise, these local improvements complement a far more expansive strategic picture. The United States already has authority over the Panama Canal, therefore influencing the commercial routes of the Western Hemisphere.

Washington would be in major control over three of the most important shipping chokepoints if she could seize power over the Cape Sea Route and guarantee the Ben Gurion Canal. China would thus be in a precarious situation since, for most of its worldwide trade, Beijing would still rely on US-owned lines even with closer links to KZN.

Washington would clearly have a strategic edge, which would enable it to apply great political and financial pressure on world trade flows. Such control affects trade taxes, maritime security, and the general balance of world power as well.

This changing geopolitical scene emphasises the Western Cape’s growing relevance as the most strategically important area in Africa for world maritime control. A successful US alignment with the Western Cape government would provide it vital control over a significant trade route, therefore ensuring its dominance in world shipping.

China's increasing presence in KZN would simultaneously preserve a precarious balance of power, ensuring that both countries stay involved in a high-stakes struggle over the most important economic routes.

The worldwide shipping order might be about to change as these events develop. A shortcut through Gaza would change Middle Eastern trade; US-South Africa conflicts could be about more than merely BRICS affiliation; KZN's growing links to China could support the division of world trade paths.

Ultimately, the struggle for dominance over the oceans of the world is about power, leverage, and the capacity to shape the course of world trade, not just about economics. The continuous conflicts and strategic investments in these areas draw attention to the always-changing character of world trade and the fierce rivalry to seize its key veins.