Some geographical terms endure long after the circumstances that gave rise to them have changed. At a time when our region is confronting profound political and strategic transformations, reconsidering the language through which we define it may provide a useful starting point for rethinking its future.

During my participation as a speaker at COP31 in Antalya, I addressed two interconnected themes: first, the Nile River and the principles and rules that should govern relations among countries sharing transboundary river basins; and second, the need to shape a new framework for regional security and cooperation in the aftermath of the wars, conflicts and prolonged instability that have affected our region.

In presenting my second argument, I referred to the emerging security and cooperation structure in the Middle East. My colleague from Jordan, Dr Majed Al Naber, suggested that I reconsider the terminology and use the term WANA, meaning West Asia and North Africa, instead of the traditional expression “Middle East”. She also offered to explain her reasoning after my lecture. Unfortunately, we did not have the opportunity to meet again, so I decided to explore the argument myself.

Having looked more closely into its geographical and historical foundations, I have come to appreciate that her suggestion was well-founded. Indeed, I believe that WANA offers a more accurate, balanced and appropriate framework for describing our region, and that the issue goes considerably beyond terminology.

The expression “Middle East” emerged from a British and broader European geopolitical perspective, defining regions according to their relative positions in relation to Europe and Britain’s imperial routes and strategic interests. The Far East, the Middle East and, in a different historical context, the Near East were all geographical designations shaped by an external point of reference. What was considered the Middle East was essentially the region lying between Europe and the Far East, particularly India and the Asian territories further east. These classifications reflected the geographical outlook and strategic priorities of the colonial powers rather than the natural geographical identity of the regions concerned.

The continued use of the term “Middle East”, therefore, carries a historical legacy that is neither geographically neutral nor particularly precise. Even the widely used expression MENA, standing for Middle East and North Africa, retains this inherited perspective by combining an externally defined Middle East with a geographically distinct North Africa.

WANA, by contrast, offers a more scientifically grounded and geographically coherent description. It brings together West Asia and North Africa as two interconnected geographical spaces whose histories, cultures, economic interests, security challenges and strategic realities have long been closely linked.

Under a broad geographical interpretation, this framework encompasses Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya and Egypt in North Africa, alongside Palestine, Israel, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan in West Asia, while allowing for the inclusion of other West Asian countries, particularly those of the Gulf and the wider region, depending on the scope of the discussion.

More importantly, WANA encourages us to view the region through its own geographical and strategic realities rather than through inherited European classifications. This is particularly relevant today, as the region faces interconnected challenges involving security, energy, food and water resources, maritime routes, economic integration, demographic pressures and the future of regional cooperation.

This brings me back to the two arguments I presented at COP31. The governance of transboundary rivers, including those of the Nile Basin, cannot be separated from the broader architecture of regional cooperation, mutual interests, international law and shared responsibility. Water security, climate resilience, food security and regional stability are increasingly interconnected. They require a comprehensive approach that moves beyond national boundaries and conventional geopolitical divisions.

Likewise, the search for a new security and cooperation structure following the current cycle of wars and instability should begin with a more coherent understanding of the geographical space concerned. West Asia and North Africa are not isolated theatres of events; they form an interconnected strategic environment in which developments in one part inevitably affect the others.

I therefore welcome the suggestion to adopt WANA rather than MENA or the Middle East. It is more than a linguistic adjustment or an academic preference. It represents an opportunity to reconsider how we define our region, understand its interdependence and shape its future.

Ultimately, changing the terminology may be a small step, but changing the geographical and strategic perspective through which we understand our region could be a much more consequential one.

*The writer is a former assistant foreign minister.

.

.

.