CAIRO – 8 June 2017: A memorandum by the Cabinet answers the most important 37 questions about Tiran and Sanafir. The text of the correspondence between Cairo and Riyadh and the geographical indications confirm the two islands are Saudi Arabian.The government and the Parliament exercised their jurisdiction in signing the Convention on the delimitation of maritime borders.
- Mutual letters about the two islands have been discussed since 1988 and the Egyptian protection of the two islands ends with the ratification of the Convention and there is no room for intervention unless it affects the borders of Egypt.
- The blood of the Egyptian soldiers were shed to defend the internal security of Egypt
- The talk of "Gamal Abdel Nasser" was metaphorical because the Egyptian territories come to block the attempts of the Israeli side to intervene.
- There is no need for international arbitration as long as we agree that the two islands are Saudi Arabian
- Talk of imposing a visa for the two islands is only rumors ... There are no secret clauses of the Convention and what means the maritime border of Egypt ends with a latitude 22 south
- The provisions of the judiciary are respected but there are international charters governing the two islands in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
- It is not permissible to say that Egypt sold the islands after the Parliament approved the agreement. Egypt did not get anything in return
- Hafez Afifi, Minister of Foreign Affairs in 1928 refused to raise the Egyptian flag on the two islands
- Egypt did not fight in the islands, and not a single drop of blood was shed on Tiran and Sanafir
- The Tiran and Sanafir Agreement facilitates the land-bridge project linking Egypt and Saudi Arabia
- The historical status of the two islands is registered and documented by specialists and technicians from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
- President Sisi’s formation of the border demarcation committee is just for verification and further personal reassurance
- International arbitration will not be used to prevent the internal embarrassment of both countries
- The government objected to the exclusion of the Speaker of the House of Representatives from the lawsuit because the House of Representatives has an inherent right to discuss the Convention
- There are no secret clauses in the border agreement between Egypt and Saudi Arabia
A memo was prepared by the Cabinet Information Center, which contain the most prominent points of reservation concerning the agreement on the delimitation of the maritime borders between Egypt and Saudi Arabia, according to the minutes of the meeting of the Prime Minister, Sherif Ismail, with a number of members of the House of Representatives, a number of experts and specialists that discussed the agreement on the demarcation of the border between Egypt and Saudi Arabia. The meeting dealt with the interpretation of the agreement regarding the history and history of the two islands through the repeated demands and signing them.
The minutes of the meeting revealed important facts related to the Convention and its mechanism of discussion and the definition of the International Law on the rights of sovereignty. Did Egypt occupy the two islands or are they originally Egyptian and where are the historical documents that refer to the ownership of the two islands to Saudi Arabia, as well as, the reasons for not signing the agreement and the continuation of Egyptian protection over the islands over 65 years? Have the reasons for the delegation of Egypt to manage the two islands ended and if the reasons still exist, why should it end now?
The meeting dealt with the answer to many of the questions related to the Convention, which some consider as a path of controversy through a number of experts and specialists along with a number of important documents, including the borders of the old country and ancient and modern maps and their accuracy
Is the passage of the Convention and its submission to the House of Representatives following the issuance of judicial decisions nullifying it, considered illegal, a measure that does not respect the rulings of the judiciary?
The provisions of the Judiciary concerning the Convention on the delimitation of maritime borders between the two countries must be respected and binding for all, while the issue of the two islands is an international dispute, governed by international rules, and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which Egypt has joined in 1982, that has rules defining the points and the areas of State sovereignty on the seas it overlooks.
The government and the Parliament have only started their original role in signing the binding agreement of the state in accordance with article 151 of the constitution. Therefore, any passing of the Convention is not the prerogative of any other institution, such as the judiciary.
How is the Convention referred to the Parliament now that it has been signed and adjudicated?
The dates of referral of international conventions to the House of Representatives for discussion are tentative and non-binding dates, and there is no provision in the Constitution and the Executive Regulations of the House of Representatives in this regard. For example, it is assumed that the first session of the House of Representatives, which will discuss and recognize the Transitional Justice Law has not happened until now, and if discussed and adopted today, it will be legally and constitutionally valid.
The task of the executive and legislative authority is one, namely, the protection of the state and its capabilities. Article 151 of the constitution defines the powers of the House of Representatives and gives it the inherent right to discuss the conventions, approve them and refer them for referendum or reject them.
The prime minister is not competent to sign international agreements, and this right belongs to the president of the Republic.
This is incorrect because the president has the right to delegate some of his powers to the prime minister.
Why has no popular referendum been held or the issue brought to the community debate before the signing of the delimitation Agreement or the presentation of documents and reasons for the poll on the two islands?
The referendum cannot be used on issues such as border agreements between states, but a referendum can be held on establishing military bases in a country or entering into military alliances.
In the definition of international law, sovereignty means ownership, and Egypt has never declared its sovereignty over the two islands. The proof of this is the text of the Permanent Representative of Egypt to the United Nations on May 27, 1967, when he asserted that Egypt never tried to claim sovereignty over these two islands. They have been moved to it. Indeed, the thing that was most asserted is that it is responsible for the defense of the two islands and therefore there is no place for sovereignty, which means that the Convention must be submitted only to Parliament.
Has Egypt occupied the two islands, or are the two islands essentially Egyptian? Where is the document or historical documents referring to the ownership of the two islands by Saudi Arabia?
Egypt has occupied the two islands at the request of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Egypt has never recognized its ownership of the two islands. In many letters to the United Nations and the ambassadors of America and Britain, it has ratified the Saudi ownership of the two islands.
The documents proving ownership of the two islands are as follows:
The first document: the letter of the Permanent Representative of Egypt to the Security Council dated May 27, 1967, which included the following recognition by Egypt: (Egypt has never tried to claim that the sovereignty over these two islands has been transferred to it. Rather it only has the responsibility for the defense of the two islands.)
The second document: A letter from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to the Egyptian Foreign Ministry in September 1988, which includes a request from the Kingdom of Egypt to keep its previous promises regarding the two islands and that they are a historical right of the Kingdom that will be returned to it after achieving stability in the region. Handing the islands to Egypt In 1950 was a desire to protect them and strengthen cooperation between the two countries in the face of the Zionist enemy.)
The third document, the most important one, is a letter sent by the Egyptian Foreign Ministry to Dr. Atef Sedky, the prime minister, carrying the recommendations of the study of the legal situation after the speeches of the former Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
The fourth document is another letter from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in August 1989 to the Egyptian Foreign Ministry, specifically from the Saudi foreign minister to Dr. Ahmed Esmat Abdul Majid Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs. The document stated in its second article: “I would like to refer to the contacts between me and your Excellency In New York, which discussed the issue of the islands of Tiran and Sanafir of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, where you indicated that there is no objection or reservation with regard to the sovereignty of the Kingdom on these islands except what may be inconsistent with Egypt's regional and international obligations that require no military forces.”
Is there a judicial decision that the Convention should be suspended even if it is signed?
Article (275) of the Code of Procedure, which states that the Execution Judge is competent in any problems and disputes of implementation in all its material and objective forms. In addition, the Supreme Administrative Court has rendered its ruling in the Convention null and void decisions emanating from it, and did not invalidate the Convention itself in application of the principle of separate decisions do not apply to the impact.
The signing of the border demarcation agreement at the present time has been subject to political harmonization and has not been subject to legal considerations. The ruling of the Administrative Court has ruled out the Speaker of the House of Representatives from the case, and the House of Representatives has a genuine right to discuss and ratify the Convention.
Is it not permissible for any party to precede the House of Representatives in considering an international convention in implementation of the provisions of the Constitution and the Executive Regulations of the Council of Representatives?
The government objected to the ruling of the Administrative Court to exclude the Speaker of the House of Representatives from the lawsuit, because the House of Representatives has the right to discuss and approve the Convention.
Is it permissible to impose fees on merchant ships passing through the territorial waters of the countries in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea?
No fees may be imposed on commercial ships passing through the territorial waters of the countries, in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
It is known that international Law of the Sea has been established for a few decades. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea was brought up for discussion in 1973. The Convention was concluded in 1982 and the States were invited to sign it. Egypt signed it in 1987 and the Convention came into effect in 1994, after the ratification of 60 countries, and this agreement includes the establishment of a legal system to ensure the sovereignty of States over their territorial waters to preserve and maintain their resources
Why has the signing of the Agreement on the delimitation of maritime boundaries between the two countries been postponed over the past period as long as Saudi Arabia calls for their return?
The signing of the agreement follows the conclusion of a round of 11 negotiations between Egypt and Saudi Arabia for the delimitation of maritime borders. The agreement was signed by Eng. Prime Minister and Prince Mohammed Bin Salman in implementation of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Why is the historical phase of the sovereignty of the islands of Tiran and Sanafir being addressed before the delimitation of the maritime borders in 90?
The maritime borders delimitation between the two countries has been postponed for 27 years and Saudi Arabia has always demanded the exchange of letters between Egypt and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia on its eligibility of the two islands. The problems in Egypt have become crises due to the failure to take the appropriate decisions in their timing. Before 1800, Sinai was all part of the Arabian Peninsula, except the northern part of Gaza and the southern border with Sudan. When Mohamed Ali decided to declare war on the terrorists in the Arabian Peninsula because of the problems that worried the Ottoman Empire, he decided to fight them in their homes and declared war on them from 1812 to 1815. He succeeded in annexing a large part of the Arabian Peninsula to Egypt, reaching the areas of Mecca and Medina, and then after the forces concluded their mission, and due to the many pressures exerted against Egypt during this period, Mohamed Ali’s armies were forced to get out from Hijaz in 1840. That land was then annexed to the Ottoman Empire, and then decades after the establishment of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in 1932, and new borders were assigned according to the existing map, as confirmed by maps of the area in the Library of Congress, Encyclopedia of the ancient maps, including the official map issued in 1900. That map marked the borders of Egypt in red, the borders of the Ottoman Empire in yellow, and by enlarging the maps we see the islands of Tiran and Sanafir are in yellow. There are a number of other maps confirming this, but the most important is the map published in 1995. That these islands belong to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, in addition to that there are many maps that are incorrect, and if we followed the map confirming Tiran and Sanafir are Egyptian, we may find that the same map says that Halaib and Shalatin are Sudanese.
What about the military presence of Egypt on the two islands and then its entry into Area C of the Camp David Accord? Is it possible to say that the basis points of the two states were based on land borders and not on the maritime ones in the past?
The Kingdom asked Egypt to secure the two islands with a military presence to strike a balance during the October 1973 war, and Egypt did not fight on the islands. There was no blood shed on Tiran and Sanafir.
The Kingdom was not mistaken in the request for military support from Egypt to protect the two islands. The State has the right to set its common border with other States provided that all parties agree. Egypt and Saudi Arabia did not establish any basis on their land borders before 1990. Egypt has deposited its baseline at the United Nations and runs from Rafah in a straight line and has not included the islands. Saudi Arabia extended its baseline in 2010 to the United Nations in a straight line that included the islands of Tiran and Sanafir.
Is it permissible to have a base point on an island that is not under the sovereignty of Egypt?
A base point cannot be placed on an island that is not under Egyptian sovereignty.
The basis of sovereignty is the establishment of service areas, and Egypt has exercised these matters on the two islands, then the two islands are Egyptian and not Saudi...Or is there another view?
There is a difference between the concept of management and sovereignty. It is important that the document sent by the Egyptian foreign minister be presented to his Saudi counterpart, which was prepared through a high-level technical and Legal Commission that confirmed that both islands are Saudi Arabian. The document also indicates that there is a government-to-state consensus on both islands and that Egypt's international obligations have imposed the presence of light military boats to protect the arms and the absence of any military elements to implement the peace treaty.
Why didn’t Saudi Arabia's concession to Egypt for the protection of the two islands, and the continuation of this protection over 65 years give Egypt the right to retain them?
In international law there is no principle of the right to own land by hand, especially since international law distinguishes between the concepts of sovereignty and protection. In international law, sovereignty is synonymous with ownership in private laws. Egypt does not have the right to preserve the two islands on the basis of protecting them for 65 years. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has not given Egypt the two islands, but has given Egypt the protection of the two islands due to certain political circumstances.
Have the reasons given to Egypt for the administration of the two islands expired, and if the reasons for Egypt's authorization are still in place, why should it end now after over a hundred years?
The circumstances that prompted Saudi Arabia to authorize Egypt to administer the two islands since 1950 have been relatively altered to protect it against any aggressive intentions by the emerging state of Israel, at a time when the kingdom has not had the military potential to deal with possible Israeli aggression.
The Kingdom's quest for the recovery of the two islands is not instantaneous.
There are legal documents confirming that the two islands have been subject to Egyptian sovereignty since the Egyptian border was set with the Ottoman state on October 1, 1906?
This is not true, this document, which was signed between the Turkish Sultan and the Khedive of Egypt in 1906, which dealt only with the amendment of land borders and separation of powers between the government of Hijaz, the Government of Jerusalem and the Sinai Peninsula. The parties agreed on:
• Separation of the administrative boundary, which starts from Taba's head to the West Coast in the Gulf of Aqaba, stretching along the eastern line in the Taba valley up to the top mount Fubit
• The dividing line in the first clause is drawn as a dashed black font on the map with the two versions attached to the agreement, and they are exchanged between the parties equally with the agreement
• The boundary is validated in the presence of the Joint Commission on the points indicated along the dividing line from the point on the Mediterranean shore to the point in the Gulf of Aqaba
• These borders will be subject to the protection of the Ottoman and Egyptian authorities
• If there is a need to renew or increase these borders in the future, each party will have to send a representative for this purpose, with the new borders to be drawn by dividing lines to be drawn on the map
• All trips between the two sides have the right to take advantage of that water there
• Turkish forces and guards are allowed to cross to the west of the dividing line
• The indigenous and Arab peoples of both sides will enjoy their own rights to ownership of the water, fields and lands on both sides, as the official situation determines the representative of the Turkish Sultanate and the representative of the Egyptian Khedive
Saudi Arabia was established in 1932 prior to its inception, who did the islands of Tiran and Sanafir belong to?
Egypt was well aware of its borders, and it is certain that the two islands are Saudi even before King Abdul Aziz al-Saud sent his letter asking Egypt to occupy the two islands and protect them from Israeli ambitions. The proof is the letter issued by the Egyptian Military and Navy on December 23, 1928 Issued by the registration number 6/3/177 and directed by the Egyptian minister of military and navy to the minister of foreign affairs of Egypt.
What happens if the Parliament approves the handover of Tiran and Sanafir to Saudi Arabia? Would the price be the return of Saudi Arabian oil to Egypt? Who is the owner of the decision and the historical responsibility of the people to abandon the two islands in favor of Saudi Arabia?
The political relations between the countries in general are not affected by the political differences. The Saudi oil cut off from Egypt did not occur because of the dispute between Egypt and Saudi Arabia over the dependence of the two islands. This is evidenced by the resumption of oil pumping through Aramco on 15/3/2017. The fact of the matter is that Saudi Arabia going through some internal crises related to the oil sector.
What is the return that Egypt will gain from its abdication of the islands in light of the loss it will incur?
It is not permissible to say that if the House of Representatives approves the transfer of ownership of the two islands to Saudi Arabia, this is a waiver of the islands. In this case, Egypt will relinquish the administration of the two islands in favor of Saudi Arabia, considering that the two islands are Saudi and therefore not waiting for a return.
With the exception of the political return of strengthening the relations between Egypt and Saudi Arabia, which will open the way for more consensus on the political situation in the region and more understanding in the political, economic and military relations between the two countries, in addition to the huge projects that can be carried out in cooperation between the two countries, Which links Egypt to Saudi Arabia.
There will be a greater opportunity to establish large projects such as the land bridge project linking Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
The waiver of the two islands to Saudi Arabia will open the door to other countries to claim Egyptian lands, such as Sudan, which is called the right in Halaib and Shalatin Egypt...What do you think about that?
Egypt has not and will not waste one inch of its territory, and the transfer of ownership of the two islands to Saudi Arabia does not mean that Egypt gave up, but it is tantamount to restoring the right to its owners. Saudi Arabia had asked Egypt to provide protection to the two islands and Egypt has performed this task to the fullest.
There is a total difference between the two cases, since the two islands are purely Saudi Arabian, they were under Egyptian administration, while Halaib and Shalatin are Egyptian property and they were subjected to Sudanese administration. Therefore, Egypt's failure to recognize Saudi Arabia's right to the two islands could serve as an excuse for Sudan to adhere to Halaib and Shalatin.
How will Saudi Arabia respond to Egypt's decision to revoke demarcation? Will the conflict be internationalized on Tiran and Sanafir? If so, will the government speak for Egypt even though the government is the one who defended that the islands are Saudi? What would be the return of the two islands ' subordination to Saudi sovereignty?
The Egyptian court has ruled that the two islands are not in dispute. The Egyptian government has not intervened in the decisions of the judiciary. The case has been referred to the Supreme Constitutional Court to decide on this matter.
Saudi Arabia is expected to internationalize the case if the dispute is resolved by revoking the agreement. In this case, the government will defend the islands as being Egyptian, because the government is a representative of the Egyptian people and its institutions who settled the issue. The government's defense of Saudi Arabia does not place them in a position of accusation.
There is no freedom of expression since the government banned demonstrations calling for Tiran and Sanafir being Egyptian…What do you think?
The Egyptian Constitution guarantees freedom of opinion, expression and peaceful demonstration, but within the framework established by law to prevent chaos and unrest.
Will Egyptians and foreigners from now on need a Saudi visa to go to Tiran and Sanafir? Are there secret clauses in the agreement?
Experts confirmed that Saudi Arabia would not impose a visa on the islands of Tiran and Sanafir, and that talking about the visa was a matter of rumors.
According to Egyptian Prime Minister Sherif Ismail, there are no classified items, which means Egypt's maritime border is up to latitude 22 south, not just in the Gulf of Aqaba.
Why was the signing of the maritime delimitation agreement between the two countries postponed for the last period as long as Saudi Arabia demanded their return?
It is known that the international law of the sea has been settled for a few decades. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea was introduced for discussion in 1973. The Convention was concluded in 1982 and came into effect in 1994 after the ratification of 60 States. A legal system that ensures the sovereignty of States over their territorial waters and the conservation and preservation of their resources.
Why did President Sisi form a new Commission for the delimitation of the border, when he could rely on Republican Decree No. 27 of 1990?
President Sisi’s formation of the border demarcation committee is just for verification and further personal reassurance that the Commission's previous decisions in 1990 were correct. Therefore, the most recent scientific methods were used to check points and calculate distances.
Why were the islands included in Egyptian textbooks and history if they were not Egyptian?
It is not mentioned that the coastal islands in the Red Sea, including the islands of Tiran and Sanafir, are Egyptian.
However, it was stressed that these islands are used for fishing from the sea and tourism, and this is what was already happening since the two islands were under Egyptian control and Egypt was using their resources.
It was unprecedented in the history of the state, has the government volunteered to issue a statement confirming the eligibility of another State in a disputed territory?
The islands of Tiran and Sanafir were placed at the disposal of Egypt in a special arrangement between Cairo and Riyadh.
Egyptian governments since the royal era in 1950, through the Nasserite era, until the reign of President Abdel Fatah al-Sisi, i.e. over more than six decades in succession, has recognized written documents and mutual letters that the ownership of the two islands belonged to Saudi Arabia.
Why is the "Tiran and Sanafir" dependency agreement linked to the King Salman Bridge despite Saudi official statements on the motives of the bridge and not linking it to the two islands?
• The project of the bridge between Egypt and Saudi Arabia was not instantaneous. The preliminary studies of the project have been presented since 1988
• The following years witnessed intensive working sessions that brought together the officials of the two countries. The foundation stone for the project was set for 2006
• In 2012, a committee was set up to study the revival of the bridge project between the two countries. The Egyptian Minister of Transport was also instructed to prepare a file on the project and the reasons for its suspension, the location of its implementation and the cost of its construction
• This issue was also raised in the Parliament of 2011-2012 after a request to brief the Speaker on the reasons for the suspension of the implementation of the project
• In 2013, the Saudi Ministry of Transport set a preliminary date for the work of the project which was in mid-2014
Why did Saudi Arabia not address the islands or raise this issue at any time other than the current time and why now? And why not set the maritime border between Egypt and Saudi Arabia for years to avoid a gap between the two countries, especially at this time of crisis and division on all local and regional levels? Are Saudi Arabia and Egypt ready to reset its borders with the rest of the neighboring countries?
• The subject of the two islands was being discussed for more than 15 years and there are previous exchanged letters in which Egypt recognized the right of Saudi Arabia in these islands
• This is the optimal time for Egypt to eliminate the project of Ben-Gurion channel, the Israeli channel planned at a financial cost exceeding $15 billion with the assistance of the World Bank with a loan of $3.5 billion at a rate of 1 percent. The aim of this project is to eliminate the Egyptian Suez Canal
• The implementation of the land bridge project between Saudi Arabia and Egypt is one of the reasons for the timing, as Israel rejects the extension of any bridge between Egypt and Saudi Arabia over the Strait of Tiran or the Gulf of Aqaba, where it is considered a violation of Article 5 of the Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty
• This cannot be postponed because the current system does not accept procrastination, and what was happening in the past is just a postponement of the matter and not a solution
• Egypt does not have border issues similar to the situation of the two islands
The timing of the announcement of the agreement was in the presence of the King of Saudi Arabia, which led to the accusation of the government to give up the land in exchange for economic agreements signed with billions of dollars with Saudi Arabia, which causes the accusation of Saudi Arabia to exploit the need of the Egyptians instead of supporting them?
• The historical situation of the two islands is registered and documented and has been referred to by specialists and technicians from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Egypt has never imposed sovereignty over the two islands. The economic agreements have never been an impetus for this
• In 1989, the Kingdom sent to Egypt a second letter confirming its demand and not seeking to create tension in the region with this request and waiting for Egypt to deal with it seriously after the end of tensions
• In 2010, Saudi Arabia returned the two islands back from Egypt, following the maritime boundary decree of the Kingdom in the depth of the Red Sea with Egypt, Jordan and Sudan
• In 2011, the Kingdom talked about this matter if the head of the General Authority for Saudi Survey arrived in Cairo to hold talks with the Egyptian officials to set the maritime border between the two countries
Problems between Egypt and Saudi Arabia will not end with the transfer of ownership of Tiran and Sanafir to Saudi Arabia?
Talk of the end of the differences between Egypt and Saudi Arabia with the transfer of the property of Tiran and Sanafir is impossible because the history of the relations between the two countries before and after the case did not recognize the existence of problems between the two countries where before the case there are many contentious issues between the two states such as:
- Egypt's objection to the Saudi aggression on Yemen
- Strategic difference between Egypt and Saudi Arabia on the file of reconciliation with the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood
- Egypt considers that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is part of the solution in the Syrian crisis, while Saudi Arabia considers the end of Bashar al-Assad's government necessary and inevitable.
After the appointment, there was a renewed political crisis between Egypt and Saudi Arabia due to Egypt's vote in favor of the Russian project on the Syrian crisis, the guarantee of a cease-fire in Syria and the introduction of humanitarian aid to the Syrians.
Has this agreement completely ended Egypt's relationship with the islands? Or is Egyptian protection still imposed in case of threats? If war breaks out in the Middle East, will Saudi Arabia ask the Egyptian army to protect the two islands again? Where is the return for blood of the Egyptian soldiers during the previous period?
The agreement on the demarcation of the border has ended the Egyptian sovereignty over the two islands and Saudi Arabia will be responsible for protecting the two islands against the external threats. Egypt will not intervene unless there is a violation of its borders and internal security; especially at a time when the islands were coveted by the Israeli entity. Egypt benefited from the two islands during the period of its administration during the previous years.
The television talk of the late President Gamal Abdel Nasser, which confirms that the two islands were owned by Egypt since 1906, and that they fall within the territorial waters of Egypt and that no power can affect the Egyptian sovereignty over them and that any harm will be an aggression will respond to him with maximum force?
By focusing on the talk of the late President Gamal Abdel Nasser on the islands of Tiran and Sanafir, we find that the talk was directed directly and specifically to the Israeli side at a stage of war and the closure of the Straits and threats from the Israeli side as he was talking about the Gulf of Aqaba in general and the Strait of Tiran in particular. He was speaking with effective control of the islands before on the request of Saudi Arabia and he was speaking metaphorically as Egyptian territory to block the attempts of the Israeli side to intervene
Why not resort to international arbitration to prevent the internal embarrassment of both countries?
International arbitration is often resorted to in the event of a political dispute between the two countries, which is unlikely at that time, and when Egypt canceled the Convention on the demarcation of the maritime border and the completion of its constitutional elements when resorting to international arbitration. But the situation is different in the case, since the Egyptian side represented by the executive authority is consistent with the vision of the Saudi side, which makes the order to go to international arbitration unlikely.
In addition, resorting to international arbitration is done with the consent of both the Egyptian and Saudi States, and there is no single desire on one side or the other.
Comments
Leave a Comment