### Donald Trump’s declaration on the Suez canal: an enlightening Egyptian reaction
The debate around the declaration of former American president Donald Trump, concerning the free passage of American military and commercial ships through the Suez Canal, aroused lively reactions, both in the Egyptian media and on social networks. In a message published on his platform, Trump said that these navigable waterways “would not exist without the United States”, a statement that was immediately challenged by various Egyptian commentators and officials.
This declaration raises several questions about international relations, national sovereignty and the history of global infrastructure.
#### Historical and political contexts
A first facet of this controversy lies in the perception of history. The Suez Canal, built between 1859 and 1869, represents an essential property for world trade, connecting Europe to Asia without requiring detour by Africa. The construction of this canal was a major Egyptian project, although its exploitation was marked by colonial and regional influences.
Egyptian Mostafa Bakri, a parliamentarian, expressed his misunderstanding in the face of Trump’s claims by evoking the underlying historical context for the creation of the canal. These remarks suggest a desire to rectify a perceived perspective as distorted, which can ignore the historical contributions of the nations concerned in the creation of critical infrastructures.
### The question of sovereignty
Beyond historical observations, the position expressed by Bakri raises a broader question: how can sovereign countries answer the statements of a former American leader who seems to reduce their autonomy? Bakri’s point on the need to respect Egyptian sovereignty and international agreements, such as Decree No. 30 of 1957 governing the rights of passage, underlines the need for a clear and respectful dialogue around international policies concerning sovereign waters.
It is essential to note that the question of free maritime circulation is delicate. The Suez Canal is a strategic axis for global trade, and its management has aroused complex debates in terms of transit rights, maritime security and foreign interventions. Trump’s position could thus be interpreted as an example of what could be described as “extraterritoriality”, a tendency in which certain states seek to influence decisions in regions and for third countries.
#### Reactions on social networks
Social networks were also a space of fervent expression on this subject, where many Internet users expressed their indignation after Trump’s publication. Some have perceived these comments as a form of pressure on a country which has, in the past, experienced external interference. This fragile climate illustrates the need for work on the perception of equality and honor in modern international relations.
#### An invitation to reflection
This type of declaration opens the door to a deeper reflection on the historical and current biases which underlie the relations between nations. The former American president has relaunched a debate which could arouse constructive discussions around international cooperation, maritime rights and the recognition of singular contributions from each nation.
The potential consequences of such an affirmation can also question equality in international relations. What role should the countries relaxing strategic waterways play in the regulation of passages, while preserving their sovereignty? In the same way, what is the level of responsibility of major powers in the management of global infrastructure and in respect for sovereign nations?
In conclusion, Trump’s declaration on the Suez Canal is not limited to a simple provocation. It calls for critical reflection on the complex interactions between history, sovereignty and international relations, as well as a respectful dialogue in order to guarantee that all the perspectives are heard. The recent revelations on tensions in this region underline the importance of a constructive commitment, based on historical facts and mutual agreements, to build bridges rather than walls in international relations.