Disagreements and Conflicts in the Suez Canals - Essay Example

The Suez Crisis: A Critical Review Social Studies Your School Introduction This paper examines the Suez crisis of 1956 which primarily involved Egypt against Britain and France as the primary contenders. The conflict eventually caused the United States, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Israel and the United Nations to be drawn into the hostilities. The paper would commence by a critique of the background of events that caused the hostilities and the disagreements. The paper will then proceed to examine the various disagreements and conflicts that occurred in the decade before the eventual crisis and discuss the actual crises and its implications. The Suez Canal The Age of Exploration commenced with the Portuguese taking a front role in the use of ships to access foreign lands on continents other than Europe. This brought about the era of colonialism where the European powers claimed various territories that their subjects acquired. Britain acquired territories in North America, Australia, India and various parts of Africa (Rai, 2009: p331). However, during the era of the rise of the Victorian Empire, Britain controlled more territories and expanded her influence. Eventually, India became Britains most priced possession in the empire (Page, 2003: p49). However, the shipping route that was used to access India and Australia was through the Atlantic Ocean, down to the the West Coast of Africa, through to the Equator and down to South Africa. From South Africa, the British ships crossed onto the Indian Ocean and passed by the Island of Madagascar before going to India and Australia. In 1859, the possibility of sailing over the Mediterranian Sea through to the Suez Canal and down to East Africa into the Indian Ocean was conceived. However, the Suez Canal needed some excavation work and some other engineering efforts before it could be used by ships. To this end, the Universal Company of the Suez Maritime Canal was formed (Glassman, 2003 p82). The company was owned by the government of Egypt which was ran by the Khedive dynasty. However, engineering works were carried out by a French company. Thus, the canal was built between 1859 was opened for usage in 1869. In 1875, the Egyptian monarchy came under serious financial crises. The government sold shares of the company to the British government (Glassman, 2003 p82). The then British Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli described the Suez Canal as the “lifeline to the British Empire” because it was the shortest link for the provision of a shipping route to the British vessels heading towards India and Australia. Thus, Benjamin Disraeli took a personal guarantee of a loan of £4 million to obtain 44% of the shares of the Suez Canal company (Glassman, 2003 p82). In return, the British were to hold the shares for a period of 99 years. The rest of the shares were bought by various individual French shareholders. Thus, the Egyptian monarchy relinquished their power to control the Suez Canal. The right to control and run it was given to the British and French governments. The British control of shares in the Suez Canals was extended to the 1880s. This gave Britain the right to control royalties in the canal and also take royalties from other ships that used the canal. In 1882, a contingent of Egyptian military officers took the canal and Britain invaded Egypt in support of the Khedive monarchy that ruled the country (Varble, 2011 p54). To this end, Britain and France deployed troops to protect their interest in the Suez Canal and also support the Egyptian monarchy. They secured the Suez Canal and Britain reinstated the Egyptian Monarchy. In 1888, the Constantinople Convention allowed the British to become a British protectorate of Egypt (Varble, 2011: 58). Britain continued to protect their interest in the Suez Canal and also provide some elements of colonial administration in the region. This was bolstered in the period after the First and Second World Wars. Events before the Suez Crisis In 1936, Britain signed the the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty. The treaty required the United Kingdom to withdraw all its troops from Egypt, except a contingent of about 10,000 and other axillary technicians to keep Egypts interest in the Suez Canal (Gorst and Kelly, 2013: p3). The United Kingdom was to train Egyptian troops and also support Egypt in case of war. Britains presence was to protect Egypt in case of external aggression. Through this treaty, the Egyptian king was able to raise a modern army. Although the army was not called into action in the Second World War, it maintained a significant presence. In 1948, when the state of Israel was formed, the Egyptian people got very upset and began to brew anti-British sentiments. This led to calls for full independence and the withdrawal of British troops from Egyptian soil. General elections were organized in Egypt in 1950 to set up a constitutional government in the country. Eventually, Nachas Pasha, the leader of the main party that was elected began to demand full independence in 1951. This led to the revocation of the 1936 Anglo-Egyptian Treaty. Egyptian paramilitaries attacked a British garrison in 1951 (Milner, 2011). In January 1952, the British government authorized an operation to disarm the native paramilitaries of the city of Ismaila. This led to serious violence and riots. As a result of Nachas Pashas action and the demands for independence that he put forward, King Farouk of Egypt dismissed him in July 1952 to please the British government. The British Foreign Secretary at that time who later became Prime Minister in the same era, Anthony Eden did not insist on reinstating Britains rights under the 1936 Anglo-Egyptian Treaty. Instead, he tried to negotiate with the new government after Pasha was dismissed (Milner, 2011). This lead to more demands and more rioting. In the face of riots and disagreements, the Egyptian military, which had been trained by the British government under the 1936 Treaty seized power from King Farouk and ended the dynasty that the British had protected since 1882. The military junta was led by General Naguib who was somewhat liberal. In 1954, Colonel Gamal Nasser replaced General Naguib as the head of state. According to Nichols (2010), Nasser had three main objectives in mind: 1. To make Egypt independent of British intervention. 2. Build Egypts military to destroy Israel and 3. Construct a dam at Aswan to irrigate the Nile valley and modernize the country. In October 1954, Britain signed an agreement with Nasser to withdraw British troops from Egypt. The agreement was to last for seven years. British troops were to leave the Suez Canal and allow Egyptian and British civilian technicians to run the Canal. British troops could be called to occupy the Suez Canal only when an outside force threatened the Canal. Also, Britain and the United States were to provide support and aid to Egypt to build the dam in Aswan and maintain the Egyptian army as a plot to win Egypt as a Cold War ally. Tensions between Britain and Egypt In February 1955, Britain failed to provide the military aid that they promised to Egypt. The United States also cut aid and failed to deliver the promise of financing the Aswan Dam (US Department of State, 2013). On the other hand, Egyptian head of state, Nasser acquired arms from the Soviet Union. The fact that Nasser turned to the Soviets was a betrayal of the Wests idea of keeping Egypt away from joining the East in the Cold War. Thus, the US withdrew aid and Britain also stopped providing assistance to Egypt. This was quite upsetting to the Egyptian president. The West had reneged on its promise to Egypt. And since the Egyptian people had always sought the exit of the British from their country, it was apparent that the British government was to be seen as an enemy because they supported the previous regime of the monarchy and they seemed to be cold towards the Nasser regime. Thus, Nasser had to take drastic action to assert his position as a leader and establish the sovereignty of his country. On 26th July 1956, President Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal (US State Department, 2013). This meant that the British shares in the Canal were relinquished and the Egyptian government had full and absolute control over the Canal. Hence, the Egyptian government was to collect all the royalties and control all affairs of the Canal without British interests. Britain needed to use the canal freely since it had ships that were moving down south to India and Australia. Britain remembered the appeasement of Hitler and the fact that the appeasement led to the Second World War. Thus, there was a motivation for Britain to take military action (Milner, 2011). As Britain sought to assert itself militarily, and consolidate its interests in the Suez Canal. However, the United States of America made it clear that it would not support any military action against Egypt (Page, 2003). British Governments Action after the Nationalization The then Prime Minister of Britain, Anthony Eden formed a committee to deal with the recovery of the Suez Canal after Nasser nationalized it. The committee, which included Harold Macmillan who supported military action against Egypt. In August 1956, the Committee organized a conference in London and put forward 18 proposals to the Egyptian government. One of the proposals was to give Nasser a personal representation on the board of the Canal and also allow him to take a percentage from the royalties to be accrued from the Canal. The Australian Prime Minister, who was on the committee travelled to Egypt with the 18 proposals to put before President Nasser. Nasser and the Egyptian government rejected the proposal and insisted on holding the canal. Across the Atlantic, US President Dwight Eisenhower was standing for re-election in November 1956 (Nichols, 2010). To avoid any unpopularity and any strange circumstances, the US President distanced himself from the 18 proposals and any promises of military action. In September 1956, the British Prime Minister organized a second conference. This time, the United States was involved in the discussions. The US focused on putting forward a proposal for the international usage of the Suez Canal. This was to be presented to the UN Security Council and once it was approved, Egypt was to be obliged to open up the Suez Canal for international usage. The US hoped that this would prevent any further aggressions. However, when the proposal was put before the United Nations Security Council, the USSR vetoed the proposal. This showed clearly that Egypt had aligned itself with the East and the country had distanced itself from the Western efforts to bring it under the Western arm of the Cold War. British Military Efforts All efforts to resolve the situation had proven futile. Britain was desperate since British ships were in the majority of ships to be using the Suez Canal . Also, French investors who were expecting to get returns from the Canal were not getting their own dividends after the nationalization. Hence, Britain and France sought to use various means and methods to get Egypt to denationalize the Canal. However, a clause in the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty allowed Britain the power to enter the Canal and protect it if the Canal ever came under international threat or pressure (Necky, 2006). Through this situation, the United Kingdom saw the possibility of taking over the Suez Canal if there was a military threat to the Canal. Thus, the British government hatched a plan to get Israel to occupy the Suez Canal. With that occupation done, Britain and France could intervene and take over the Canal one more time. Britain had been neutral in the Israeli War of independence in 1948 (Necky, 2006). This was in contravention with the Balfour Declaration of 1917 which sought to give the Jews a homeland in Palestine. However, France had been sympathetic to Israels cause. Thus, the Israelis gave the French some kind of ear and support in the Suez crisis. So the British Foreign Secretary concluded a meeting in Sevres with the French and Israelis. In the meeting, Israel was to occupy the Suez Canal and Britain and France would take over from the Israelis. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Edens Cabinet appealed for military intervention in the Suez crisis. However, the British Foreign Office was divided about using military force against Egypt because they saw a serious lack of funds and Britain was under the threat of an economic collapse. On 29th October 1956, Israel invaded some cities in Israel and took over the Suez Canal area (Necky, 2006). This was in accordance with the plan of the British and French in the Sevres meeting. Israel therefore took the areas according to the main plan and arrangement of the meeting and discussions they had already completed. A day later, 30th October, 1956, the British and French forces gave Egypt and Israel an ultimatum to end hostilities. Nasser rejected the ultimatum and filled the Suez Canal with Egyptian troops to secure it from Israelis and potential foreign aggression. A week later, on the 5th and 6th of November 1956, British and French forces invaded Port Said and took control of the Suez Canal. Prior to the invasion of Port Said, Harold Macmillan, then a top member in the government of Prime Minister Anthony Eden warned of a potential economic peril which could befall Britain if they went ahead with military efforts against Egypt. Harold Macmillan withdrew his support for the military action against Egypt. In the United States, Dwight Eisenhower was reelected as President of the United States. So it was apparent that they did not really have any real limitations in waging war against Egypt. However, the United States failed to provide support for the British effort. The matter was presented to the United Nations Security Council. On 7th November, the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) as well as the United Nations condemned the British and French military action. Britain and France withdrew their support for the military action. They ended hostilities Egypt held on to the Suez Canal. Israel also withdrew under pressures from the United Nations. Eventually, the Soviet Union lifted aid to Egypt whilst the United States provided aid to Israel. Implications of the Suez Crisis On January 9th 1957, Anthony Eden, who had suffered serious health challenges as a result of pressures in his office resigned as Prime Minister. He was replaced by Harold Macmillan who became Prime Minister (Necky, 2006). Eventually, the United States sought a diplomatic end to the crisis. This led to the eventual reopening of the Suez Canal to foreign ships. However, the incident altered global balance of power. This is because Britain and France, who were the colonial powers of the global order after World War I lost their power and the Soviet Union and the United States became the most dominant power in global affairs. Nasser became popular around the world and he had an influence over the developing world (Boddy-Evans, 2011). Nassers popularity led to the propagation of ideas relating to independence and the decolonization of nations around the world. Nasser promoted nationalism in the Arab world and Africa. Based on the impetus of Nasser, nations like Ghana who gained independence in 1957, after the Suez crises organized themselves and supported the rapid decolonization of African states (Boddy-Evans, 2011). Nasser also supported the Algerian war against French rule and formed the Organization of African Union (OAU) which is now the African Union (Boddy-Evans, 2011). Meanwhile, the fall of Britain and France led to the rise of the Soviet Union and the United States as dominant global powers. This led to the bipolar global division which became the basis of the Cold War. Conclusion British colonial control of the global order led to the reliance on the Suez Canal when it was first excavated. Seeing that the Suez Canal would be vital for the British Empire, British Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli took a personal loan to acquire shares in the Canal. This led to British and French support for the British monarchy between 1882 and 1954. The demand for self rule and independence by the Egyptians after the Second World War led to a rift between Britain and Egyptian nationalists. Egyptian nationalism culminated in the overthrow of the British monarchy and the installation of military rule which eventually passed to Nasser. Nasser sought to build an army that could destroy Israel and also modernize the country. Britain fell out with Egypt by cutting aid they promised. Egypt turned to the Soviet Union for support. Eventually, Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal. Britain tried to use dialogue to retain the Suez Canal but it failed. Britain then hatched a plan with France to get Israel to invade Egypt and get the chance to re-enter Egypt. This happened but the United Nations, led by USA and USSR declared this action illegal and Britain and France withdrew. The Suez Crises led to the growth in the popularity of Nasser. Nasser supported the decolonization of nations in Africa and promoted nationalism amongst Arab states. Britain and France lost their control in global affairs and USSR and USA rose in their stead as global powers. References Boddy-Evans, A. (2011). “African History” [Online] Available at: http://africanhistory.about.com/od/eraindependence/a/SuezCrisis.htm Accessed: 26th February, 2013. Glassman, B. (2003). Benjamin Disraeli New York: Rowman & Littlefield. Gorst, A. And Kelly, S. (2013). Whitehall the Suez Crisis: London: Routledge. Milner, L. (2011). “The Suez Crisis” [Online] Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/suez_01.shtml Accessed: 26th February, 2013. Necky, M. (2006). “The Suez Crisis” Oxford University Press [Online] Available at: http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/dept/scwmss/projects/suez/suez.html Accessed: 26th February, 2013. Nichols, D. A. (2010). Eisenhower: 1956 New York: Simon & Schuster Page, M. E. (2003). Colonialism Santa Barbera: ABC-CLIO. Rai, R. (2009). History New York: FK Publications US Department of State (2013). “Milestones: 1953 – 1960” [Online] Available at: http://history.state.gov/milestones/1953-1960/Suez Accessed: 26th February, 2013. Varble, D. (2011). The Suez Crisis New York: Rosen Publishing Group. Read More