As global trade
continues to grow, the Suez Canal remains the primary conduit for Asia-Europe
maritime trade, handling 12% of global cargo and 30% of container traffic.
However, its strategic monopoly faces challenges due to rising security
threats, congestion, high transit fees, and occasional disruptions like the
2021 Ever Given incident. These factors have sparked interest in
identifying and utilizing alternative routes to mitigate risks and optimize
costs.
This study aims to comparatively analyze all the
alternative routes to the Suez Canal Route (SCR), including the Cape Route
(CR), Northern Sea Route (NSR), Trans-Siberian Route (TSR), China-Europe
Railways Express (CRE), International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC),
and the recent India-Middle-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEEC). The comparison
involves an examination of each route’s prices, costs, distances, advantages,
disadvantages, and economic and political implications.
Findings underscore that, despite the growing appeal
for alternative routes, none currently matches the SCR's cost-effectiveness and
established infrastructure for the Asia-Europe trade. Alternatives are
primarily supplementary, offering diversification during disruptions but
lacking the capacity to displace the Suez Canal as the dominant trade route.
Furthermore, geopolitical factors, such as tensions in the Middle East and
sanctions against Russia, significantly impact the viability of several routes.
This research contributes to the study of global
supply chains and the development of trade routes for global maritime and
overland transportation. The findings are intended to inform the readers of
broader discussion on transportation and logistics by providing a
comprehensive, up-to-date analysis of all major trade alternatives. It
highlights the enduring importance of maritime transportation while advocating
investment in emerging alternatives to ensure global trade security in the face
of evolving geopolitical and environmental challenges.
