Island Diplomacy In The Red Sea And The Mediterranean To Counter China

II.

An excerpt from, “Geopolitics of Islands: The Importance of Tiran and Sanafir” By Sara Coppolecchia, Istituto Analisi Relazioni Internazionali, April 11, 2025:

The islands of Tiran and Sanafir, at the center of historical disputes, remain strategic for trade and security in the Red Sea today, as well as a symbol of new regional balances.

Long a subject of contention between Egypt and Saudi Arabia, the Tiran and Sanafir islands have significant geopolitical importance for many countries in the region. 

Geographically, their location is strategic: they lie at the entrance to the Gulf of Aqaba, a crucial passage connecting the ports of Eilat, Israel, and Aqaba, Jordan, to the Red Sea.

. . .This is perhaps why Israel, after occupying the islands in 1956 (during the Suez Crisis) and 1967 (following the Six Day War), did not hesitate to return them to Egypt in 1982, in line with the Camp David Accords.

The major contention over the islands, however, has been between two other actors: Egypt and Saudi Arabia. 

An excerpt from, “Cyprus, Israel to finalize power link in 2025″ By Vassilis Nedos, eKathimerini.com, May 6, 2025:

Cyprus and Israel have agreed to finalize a deal for an electric power interconnection by 2025, as part of the Great Sea Interconnector (GSI) with Greece, signaling a deeper bilateral energy partnership. This agreement was announced after a meeting between Cyprus President Nikos Christodoulides and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel.

The public association of the GSI with the larger India-Middle East-Europe Corridor (IMEC), a US-backed initiative, underscores a strategic diplomatic move aimed at attracting American interest in the increasingly volatile Eastern Mediterranean region, in a period marked by instability from Syria to the Gulf of Aden.

Discussions also included the possible involvement of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in the power cable project, though its participation remains uncertain.

Meanwhile, Cyprus is once again the focal point of Turkey’s display of power, as highlighted by recent statements and the incendiary rhetoric from Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan during his visit to the island nation’s Turkish-occupied north on Sunday. This ongoing tension comes against a backdrop of broader diplomatic movements in the region.

An excerpt from, “Geopolitics of Cyprus and the IMEEEC Corridor” SpecialEurasia:

The India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEEEC) emerges as a promising pathway for economic prosperity in Cyprus, bearing implications that transcend geographical boundaries. IMEEEC confirms that the island’s strategic significance lies in its geographical location in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea, serving as a crucial hub linking Europe, Asia, and Africa.

Different world leaders (regional and international key players) promoted this initiative to fortify economic ties across Asia, the Persian Gulf, and Europe, considering also that IMEEEC offers a different pathway compared to Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative.

The IMEEEC economic corridor, covering approximately 4800 kilometres, aims to not only reduce transportation costs and accelerate trade, but also enhance global economic connectivity.

However, uncertainties surrounding project timelines, financing, and geopolitical challenges, notably the conflict in Gaza, cast shadows on the envisioned benefits.

An excerpt from, “Cyprus In The Mediterranean Geopolitics” By Joseph S. Roucek, Il Politico, Vol. 41, December 1976:

More specifically, during most of its entire history, Cyprus has been ruled by outsiders. Its strategic location has been of value to every power dominating the eastern Mediterranean. 

Cyprus was inhabited as early as the New Stone Age in the 4thmillenium B.C. Archeans from Greece traded with the early Cypriots from 1600 B.C. and set up colonies there after the end of the Trojan War (c. 1184 B.C.).

From the middle of the 8th century B.C., Cyprus was dominated successfully by Phoenicians, Assyrians, Egyptions, Persians, Alexander and the Ptolemies, Romans, Byzantines, Moslems, Crusaders, Venetians and Turks. Great Britain took over the administration in 1878 under an agreement with Turkey, annexed the island in 1914, and made it a Crown Colony in 1925.

Agitation for enosis (union) with Greece resulted in the British abolishing the legislative council in 1931. Demands for enosis were renewed after World War II, to which the Turkish minority was opposed. Widespread

violence in 1955-56, led by EOKA, and underground organization, brought

harsh measures, including the temporary exiling of Archbishop Makarios III, head of the Independent Orthodox Church in Cyprus and the leader of the enosis movement.

In 1959, the conflict was brought to a temporary halt by a Zurich agreement signed by British, Greek, Turkish and Cypriot leaders, under which Cyprus was to become a Republic, with a President elected from and by

the ethnic Greek community, and a Vice President from and by the corresponding Turkish community. A 70-36 % proportion of the Greek and Turkish communities was to be represented the House of Rrepresentatives. The separate Greek and Turkish Communal Chambers dealt with religion, education and other communiai affairs. Britain retained 2 military enclaves, Akrotiri and Dhekelia. 

. . .How the geopolitical aspects of a small island, Cyprus, is of importance to the NATO and even Washington was demonstrated in July, 1974, when definite attempts were made to to avoid open warfare between two of its NATO allies, Greece and Turkey. And beyond that it was faced with an extremely awkard set of political and strategic problems.