Turkey expects to lay ground for Kanal Istanbul project in summer

[mulj]

you can restrict and regulate it that much that ship forwarders will pay in advance for the canal passage service, it is win win project.

 

[Tornadoss]

I am unaware of the technical details of Kanal Istanbul however if you consider the earlier projects the opposition tried to sabotage like the Şehir Hastaneleri in retrospect turned out to be excellent investments since there were plenty İC units during the peak of pandemic while most countries experienced serious difficulties. Another strategic project they oppose is the NPP's in which everyone realizes currently it is absolute a must.

So my concern is if all those attempts based on false perceptions from certain circles and opposition parties are clearly guided and instructed by foreign powers how can the people still trust or even take them serious? They are in my view not to be trusted they're a bunch of clowns.

People are not against most of the investment, including me. We are against this type of investment. The process is shady, the amounts paid to the construction companies are shady. These city hospitals are not good in terms of accessibility. They closed the hospitals in the center, now people have to go nearly out of the city to go to these hospitals.

And it's pretty annoying when you start to connect everything to these foreign powers to everything. FFS be original a little bit.

 

[Nutuk]

you can restrict and regulate it that much that ship forwarders will pay in advance for the canal passage service, it is win win project.

Not really.

The Lousanne treaty says clearly that Turkey has to keep the lanes open for free passage. Exceptional cases like storm, accidents etc. is not the same like restriction.

About regulation, we do not even have the right to enforce guide captains on board of these ships, you figure out the rest.

As said, if Turkey is willing to kick down the Lousanne treaty and force the traffic through the canal it is another thing, than OK a canal would make sense. But have you heard even a hint towards this, I did not!

 

[mulj]

Not really.

The Lousanne treaty says clearly that Turkey has to keep the lanes open for free passage. Exceptional cases like storm, accidents etc. is not the same like restriction.

About regulation, we do not even have the right to enforce guide captains on board of these ships, you figure out the rest.

As said, if Turkey is willing to kick down the Lousanne treaty and force the traffic through the canal it is another thing, than OK a canal would make sense. But have you heard even a hint towards this, I did not!

Paper can suffer anything, pharaphrasing common wisdom, meaning you can present your case also with regulaation, lets say that you can create burocrasy forest for forwarder and at the same time respecting treaty, i am sure that there are many creative mechanisms to motivate ships to use new canal, that is insuficient reason to object project, onky number of ships using straits at the moment counts.

 

[Nutuk]

Paper can suffer anything, pharaphrasing common wisdom, meaning you can present your case also with regulaation, lets say that you can create burocrasy forest for forwarder and at the same time respecting treaty, i am sure that there are many creative mechanisms to motivate ships to use new canal, that is insuficient reason to object project, onky number of ships using straits at the moment counts.

How many examples do we have, has it ever been done?

If no, why not? Maybe because there are some strict rules?



In short having a canal on assumptions like maybe we can do this or that is a very weak guarantee to say it softly, that's more like "enayi kandirmaca"

 

[mulj]

How many examples do we have, has it ever been done?

If no, why not? Maybe because there are some strict rules?



In short having a canal on assumptions like maybe we can do this or that is a very weak guarantee to say it softly, that's more like "enayi kandirmaca"

Ok, stop the project out of the fear of possible complains...

Make passage trough straits costly in term of time which is undisputable so easy to do and all according to the contracts and obligations of Tyrkie Republic, no one will bother with it anymore once the canal is built and available.

 

[emrachi]

Many cargo ships loaded with dangerous goods are passing the bosphorus on a daily basis just imagine the huge disaster that can potentially happen if such a large vessel sinks or collides with another or explode as happenend in the port of Beirut.

That’s why it is important to deviate the existing ship routs though the new canal. The importance of this issue is above the rules of any convention it is about security of a metropol city with 15+ population. IMO once the canal is ready and open somehow authorities can force those ships trough the canal due to these legitimate enviromental and security reasons.

 

[Tornadoss]

Many cargo ships loaded with dangerous goods are passing the bosphorus on a daily basis just imagine a disaster that can happen if such a large vessel sinks or collides with another or explode as happenend in the port of Lebanon. Istanbul will be in great danger.

That’s why it is important to deviate the existing ship routs though the new canal. This issue is above any other old convention it is about security i suppose once the canal is ready and open that somehow authorities can force those cargo ships trough the canal due to enviromental and security reasons.

Won't these ships create another danger in the canal on a narrower path? The depicted illustrations of the canal show residential areas all over the canal. Will it be safe for these?

 

[Fairon]

Nutuk abi same arguments and propaganda were made at beginning of Marmaray project now millions of people use those metro's daily again same propaganda was done against Istanbul Grand airport which is 2nd most used airport in the world.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1513882162491187221

There are couple of differences between the projects. Marmaray is an old project and IGA is needed. Projects themselves were not in question but people question how AKP realized these projects. Also IGA is 2nd most user airport in the world because most of the European airports were not fully used because of Covid. Just for comparison Antalya Airport served 29million passengers in 2019 and Antalya Airport usually ranks between 10-15th.(in Europe)I am not saying IGA Airport will not used but that number is not representing full picture. (Also 26million passengers are very low amount for a airport like IGA but that also because of Covid. Just trying to say that if you use 26million passengers as justification for IGA, Atatürk Airport usually handled twice that number and in that case IGA was waste of money. Still I think that bigger airport was needed in Istanbul but location and project planning was bad for IGA)

Canal Istanbul is very different in that case. It is not needed and it is a money sink. I am not even mentioning the potential life costing risks that project have.

 

[emrachi]

Won't these ships create another danger in the canal on a narrower path? The depicted illustrations of the canal show residential areas all over the canal. Will it be safe for these?

Currently these ships are passing through huge residential areas on the other hand Canal has very small residential areas that can be evacuated very fast in case of emergency.

 

[Fairon]

Many cargo ships loaded with dangerous goods are passing the bosphorus on a daily basis just imagine the huge disaster that can potentially happen if such a large vessel sinks or collides with another or explode as happenend in the port of Beirut.

That’s why it is important to deviate the existing ship routs though the new canal. The importance of this issue is above the rules of any convention it is about security of a metropol city with 15+ population. IMO once the canal is ready and open somehow authorities can force those ships trough the canal due to these legitimate enviromental and security reasons.

Well explosion happened at the Beirut port because Hizbullah forget that they stored large amount of explosives at the port 6 years ago(prior to explosion). It is not really the same situation.

 

[emrachi]

Well explosion happened at the Beirut port because Hizbullah forget that they stored large amount of explosives at the port for 6 years .(prior the explosion). It is not really the same situation.

The cause of the explosion don’t have to be the same as Beirut, if a cargo vessel filled with explosives or chemical substances collides with eachother it will explode or sink if there is a dangerous situation you have to fix it before a accidents take place.

 

[Fairon]

The cause of the explosion don’t have to be the same as Beirut, if a cargo vessel filled with explosives or chemical substances collides with eachother it will explode or sink if there is a dangerous situation you have to fix it before a accidents take place.

If only there are other options than opening a canal.

Maybe we can closely monitor that kind of ships as they pass and regulate the traffic arround them. Maybe we can regulate the ships itselves and only allow ships that meets certain criterias to carry that kind of cargo. Maybe we can only allow companies that meets certain criterias to carry that kind of cargo.(Most likely we are doing all of that but lets just assume we are not.)

Naah nonsense, only option is spliting the country and opening a canal!

Edit:
BTW you can find all the regulations regarding ships carrying dangerous goods that want to pass through the straitsin below link.(just search "tehlikeli" in the document)

https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/21.5.1426.pdf

 

[Ryder]

If the Ottomans and previous Turkish governments were looking into a Canal for Istanbul that means there is some benefit or long term plan they tried to benefit from.

Only back down due to costs or technology. Same story with the Ottomans trying to make the Suez and the Volga-Don canal.

 

[Nutuk]

Many cargo ships loaded with dangerous goods are passing the bosphorus on a daily basis just imagine the huge disaster that can potentially happen if such a large vessel sinks or collides with another or explode as happenend in the port of Beirut.

That’s why it is important to deviate the existing ship routs though the new canal. The importance of this issue is above the rules of any convention it is about security of a metropol city with 15+ population. IMO once the canal is ready and open somehow authorities can force those ships trough the canal due to these legitimate enviromental and security reasons.

Agree, good arguments!

But whether you have a canal or not, you cannot order anyone not to use the Bosphorus. Unless Turkey annuls the Lausanne treaty.

Is Turkey gonna do that? The government is only telling that Turkey fully adheres the Lausanne treaty, no any signal that Turkey is planning to annul it.

So all the good arguments are dumped in the salty waters of the Bosphorus.

Like said before if Turkey seriously considers to lift the treaty than go for it, otherwise it is a big waste of money.

 

[Nutuk]

If the Ottomans and previous Turkish governments were looking into a Canal for Istanbul that means there is some benefit or long term plan they tried to benefit from.

Only back down due to costs or technology. Same story with the Ottomans trying to make the Suez and the Volga-Don canal.

Ah did the Ottomans have a Lausanne treaty that stipulated free passage? No? Than your reference to the Ottomans has a big hole.

 

[Nutuk]

I don't know what you guys refuse to understand.

We have a treaty called Lausanne treaty. This treaty clearly binds Turkey to keep the streets free for passage (a giant big open door)

As long as this treaty exist no matter what good arguments you have a canal will never be profitable, it will only cost money and is like a door for which you ask money for passage while next to it there is a giant open door that if totally free.

Close that free door and than it is meaningful to open another door with a fee. I can not explain it more simple than this.

 

[B.t.N]

I don't know what you guys refuse to understand.

We have a treaty called Lausanne treaty. This treaty clearly binds Turkey to keep the streets free for passage (a giant big open door)

As long as this treaty exist no matter what good arguments you have a canal will never be profitable, it will only cost money and is like a door for which you ask money for passage while next to it there is a giant open door that if totally free.

Close that free door and than it is meaningful to open another door with a fee. I can not explain it more simple than this.

Devil looks after his own! There are ways to bypass agreements without declaring them null and void… There is nothing in those international agreements that says Turkey cannot charge for safety measures, or ask for mandatory insurance (suggested by a friend of mine, a near-genious insurance broker), and direct the traffic to the new canal. There are alternatives…

 

[emrachi]

Agree, good arguments!

But whether you have a canal or not, you cannot order anyone not to use the Bosphorus. Unless Turkey annuls the Lausanne treaty.

Is Turkey gonna do that? The government is only telling that Turkey fully adheres the Lausanne treaty, no any signal that Turkey is planning to annul it.

So all the good arguments are dumped in the salty waters of the Bosphorus.

Like said before if Turkey seriously considers to lift the treaty than go for it, otherwise it is a big waste of money.

I agree Nutuk abi but Lusanne treaty is not the gospel it can be changed when Turkish military/ defence industry is strong enough and i think it is strong enough if not it is getting stronger. After 5-10 years they will be working on strategic weapons.

 

[Nutuk]

Bypassing the agreement is to annul the agreement, if that is the plan (which has been rejected / denied by our government) than I agree. This is what I've been writing all the time.

With Lausanne treaty in craft the canal makes no sense. Either you change / annul the treaty or don't waste a lot of money on the canal.