Causes of the Suez Canal Crisis of 1956 - Research Paper Example

CAUSES OF THE SUEZ CANAL CRISIS OF 1956 due: Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Introduction 3 Background 3 Events Leading to the Suez Crisis 5 European Exploration and Conquest during the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Century 5 Egypt’s Political Position in 1950’s 6 The Post-revolution Period 7 Disappointment of British Plans by Nasser of Egypt 8 Nationalization of the Suez Canal 9 English, France and American Diplomatic Relations 11 The Serves Protocol 11 Strained Diplomatic Relations between the United State and the Soviet Union 12 Egypt’s Exploitation of Rivalry between Superpowers 16 Conclusion 17 Bibliography 17 Introduction The Tripartite Aggression, commonly known as the Suez war of 1956 was an attack on Egypt by Israel Britain, and France who had robust interests in taking control over the Suez Canal. This attack prompted Egypt to nationalize the inland water way after Britain withdrew. This paper will critically analyse the main causes of the Suez Canal War of 1956. However, it is imperative to briefly examine the background of the passage. Background The Suez Canal was constructed and financed by the French and Egyptian governments after ten years of hard work.1 It was run by the Suez Canal Company. Most important, the area surrounding the canal remained Egyptian territory, and was the only land bridge between Africa and Asia, continents that the western powers had colonial interests. Problems started way back after it was officially opened in the late 1800’s. Upon its opening, the canal became a tactical passage that linked the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean. Trade and commerce for European colonial power appeared to have been alleviated. The United Kingdom, a then super power cultivated interest of taking part in managing the passage, which gave them colonial advantage to access and control over India. Additionally, they had an easy contact with and entry into Africa through the passage. Egypt was faced by a debt and financial crisis that led the present Egyptian ruler to sell Egypt’s shares to the British government, who were willing buyers. In 1875, the Egyptian government sold its portion and rights to the English. In 1882, an intended national uprising against Egyptian leader, Khedive because of unsettled differences in pay between Egyptians and Europeans occurred. This prompted both the British and French to issue an ultimatum, affirming Khedive as the authority over Egypt. In addition, the United Kingdom took a defacto control over Egypt and considered the canal a neutral zone through the Convention of Constantinople.2 In times of war or peace, international shipping was given free pass through the canal. However, during the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05, Japan and Britain entered into separate bilateral agreements that denied Russia use of the canal. During the First World War, the importance of the passage was realised when British and France limited its use to its allies. Egypt’s fate changed in 1936 when the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty was signed bestowing the ownership of the property to England. British took control until the 1950’s when the first owners, Egypt re-initiated control. England pulled out in 1954 leaving Egypt in control of the canal that was later nationalised by Nasser, the Egyptian President. A looming disaster arose in late 1956 when Israel invaded Egypt. Israel’s invasion prompted Britain and France to express interests over the inland water way by regaining Western control of the Suez Canal. Additionally, the super powers were determined to remove Nasser from power as he acted as a threat to their ambitions of gaining the passage.3 This prompted reactions from the United Nations, the Soviet Union, and the United States who got involved diplomatically and compelled Israel, France and Britain to withdraw their activities from Egypt.4 Israel demonstrated her increased interests through the invasion of Egypt Sinai promoting France and Britain to issue an ultimatum to cease fire. In retaliation to Israel’s activities in Egypt, they bombed Cairo.5 Their governments heavily denied the act despite the fact that Israel’s vested interest in Egypt and her ensuing Anglo-French attacks had been planned earlier.6 The allies had attained their military objectives but the USSR, United States and United Nations mounted pressure obliging them to withdraw. As a result, Anglo-French forces withdrew whole Israeli forces remained until early 1957.7 The canal was then reopened and the United Nations deployed a force to guard over the Egyptian-Israeli border. Events Leading to the Suez Crisis European Exploration and Conquest during the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Century The European age of exploration, from the fifteenth to the sixteenth centuries, foresaw a sudden increase of interest in overseas exploration. This new movement was hastened and brought about by several causes, among them the search for wealth, the improvements in sailing technology and the breakthrough of new trade routes.8 Even though a number of factors motivated European exploration, trade and wealth frequently motivated most nations. During the tenth and twelfth centuries, Europe was exposed to the trade of spies and a number of luxury goods from Asia. This period was characterised by Europe’s continued demand of the items leading to a high demand of the goods than the supply and thus providing merchants and traders with better profits as they could charge high prices on goods.9 Italian merchants who mostly resold the items to European traders at increased prices controlled most trade items from East. As a result, most merchants and traders desired for new sources of wealth and explored overseas nations. By the fourteenth century, European traders and merchants circumvented dominating merchants, and found a sea route directly to Asia. This period not left the Europeans with a taste for spices and gold, but also created a determination to conquer Asia, from where they obtained trade goods. The invention of ships that could sail against the wind was a significant improvement that enabled sailors to move quicker. In sum, the advancement of navigation techniques to determine sea locations and direction enabled sailors’ accurate cut through their guidance and thus avoid losing sea routes. Improved and advanced naval techniques also enabled Europeans to go to other nations like India and America. The economic potential of Asian nations with vast oil reserves and an inland waterway prompted Britain to establish and strengthen its position and interest in Egypt. Britain’s establishment of a strong military base made the Suez Canal considered an important part of Britain’s protectorate in the Middle East even despite the fact that there was growing Anglo-Egyptian tension. Egypt’s Political Position in 1950’s In the period of the Cold War, the Middle East was identified as a significant area and thus, the easiest passage to the region, which was the Suez Canal, was defined as vital. British has stationed its troops along the passage identifying her oversees powers. On the other hand, the Egyptians treated Britain’s act as a sign of rule that would have diminished during World War Two. The United Kingdom took control over the region to the extent that Egyptians had to seek permission to access the canal. To the Egyptians, Britain’s act was viewed as an act of infringement of their territory. As a result, resistance ensued and Egyptians started defending their sovereignty over the Canal. In the course of World War II, Egypt’s political temperatures were defined as extreme. This was mainly prompted by economic instability, unemployment and inflation. Disturbances and disorder started to manifest from militant political groups among then the Muslim Brotherhood and Communist Party. Increased hostility towards Britain and her authority over Egypt spread fast. In addition, the Egyptian government accused the British of favouring Israel.10 As such, the Egyptians developed an anti-British policy that passed through Egypt’s reactions with Britain leading to the abrogation of the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty that leased the Suez base for 20 years. In retaliation, British refused to withdraw her activities from the Suez and accused the Egyptian government for impinging treaty rights. These prompted increased violent hostility towards Britain, and her troops in Egypt. Egyptian authorities denied their role in the uprising and did nothing to restrain the rebellion. British took control of the situation, and in her attempts to disarm police forces in Ismailia, more that forty Egyptians lost their lives. This resulted to riots against the western powers in Cairo resulting to damage of property, and deaths of people, including eleven British citizens.11 These events provided a ground for the eradication of the Egyptian Monarchy. In 1952, a military coup masterminded by Muhammad Neguib and the Egyptian President Abdul Nasser overthrew the monarchy and established an Egyptian republic. The political and social relationship between Egypt and Israel increased more tension in the Suez. Egyptian powers intercepted and destroyed cargo shipments to and from Israel as they attempted to pass through the Suez Canal. These acts led the United Nations Security Council to order the termination of passage of international commerce ships through the canal. For this reason, Egypt’s interference contrary to the laws of the canal increased tension in the region. The Post-revolution Period After the coup, British desired to mend the Anglo-Egypt relations through rapprochement. Part of the agreement required British to terminate her rule in Sudan by 1953, and in return Cairo would abandon their sovereignty over the Nile Valley by 1956. A deal was sealed and agreed to the departure of British troops from the Suez base within twenty months. The British would continue to maintain the base and hold the right to return its troops for seven years.12 Even though the agreement was sealed, Egypt’s position remained uncertain and weak. Egypt’s loss to claim Sudan and the presence of British powers at the canal for two more years elicited domestic turmoil that lead to the assassination attempt against the Egyptian president. Egypt’s stubborn nature was illustrated by Nasser who believed the country’s independence and his regime were not safe unless Egypt was established as the head of the Arab world.13 Egypt maintained this position and challenged British Middle East interests in mid 1950’s. Nasser had particular concerns with Britain’s close relationships with the kingdoms of Iraq and Jordan. These actions acted as major threats in Nasser’s ambitions to see Egypt as the leader of the Arab world. The initiation of the Baghdad pact of 1955 that was characterised by British handing over her two air bases in Iraq to the local authorities looked as if they confirmed Nasser’s fears. Nasser feared that Britain would draw the attention of the Eastern Arab world and centre the bloc upon Iraq. Determined to retain his position and sympathetic to Britain’s activities, Nasser responded by challenging British influence in Egypt, events that culminated in the Suez crisis. Disappointment of British Plans by Nasser of Egypt Egypt, through Nasser inflicted a number of policies that were aimed at frustrating British aims in the Middle East. This resulted to increased hostility between Britain and Egypt. For example, Nasser spread rumours that any western defence pact aimed at practising colonialism that would cause Arab division and weaken their sovereignty. According to Nasser, Israel’s problems were initiated by British machinations.14 His activities led him to align Egypt with Saudi Arabia whose leaders had hereditary rivalry with the Hashemites. As a result, Britain’s efforts to create the Baghdad pact by drawing Lebanon, Syria and Jordan were frustrated. Determined to make herself relevant in the Middle East, British sponsored demonstrations in Amman. As a result, King Hussein dismissed Glubb Pasha, the British commander of the Arab region, a decision that was in violation with Britain’s Middle Eastern security policy15. Nasser’s activities did not only aim at weakening British’s relations with other nations but also arming Egypt ready to protect its sovereignty. He negotiated an arms deal with communists and thus ended Egypt’s reliance on Western arms. This also opened the leeway for Egypt to get arms from other members of the Warsaw Pact. This led to increased presence of Soviet influence over the Middle East as all arm sales had to be authorised by the Soviet Union. In turn, this act caused tension in the United States over Soviet’s strong presence in the region. Nasser’s regime made him became an enemy among British circles, and was viewed as a dictator especially by the British prime minister. Nationalization of the Suez Canal With the aim of taming Nasser’s activities, British looked towards the United States for nations for support. On the other hand, America was unresponsive, and her closest ally in the region was Saudi Arabia, a kingdom that was totally opposed to Hashemite domination of the Baghdad pact. This drew parallel lines of thought between Britain and United States as the latter was aligned to the pact, while the former was allied to Saudi Arabia whose stand remained strongly against Hashemites. The failure of the treaty reduced Britain’s dominance over the region.16 Events that cropped up the crisis took place in 1956 when the Egyptian president officially recognised the People’s Republic of China. This moved angered the United States, who was a close sponsor of Taiwan.17 America retaliated by withdrawing all financial aid for the Aswan dam. She also accused Egypt of being over ambitious of her economic capabilities. On the other hand, Nasser responded back by nationalizing the Suez Canal. He went ahead and made a public dismissal and pronouncement of the builder of the canal. Egyptian forces seized control of the canal and effected its nationalization.18 A nationalization law that froze all assets of the Suez Canal Company was thus published. According to the law, stockholders would be paid their shares through the Paris Stock Exchange.19 Nationalization of the Suez negatively affected Britain’s economic and military interests in the region. Domestic pressure loomed the British political arena, and distinctions were made with the events of the Munich agreement. Britain was perplexed of the action to impose as they lacked support from America. Direct military intervention would smash the Anglo-Arab regions, an act that would not go well with Washington. Lacking no options to act, the British government turned to France and Israel. She convened a secret military agreement that aimed repossessing control over the Suez. English, France and American Diplomatic Relations Alliances between Britain and France were formed to look for the way towards repossessing the Suez.20 Britain approached the United States for cooperation to deal with a looming Israeli attack against Egypt. America was less effective on British’s approaches and was less concerned about Israeli’s activities in Egypt. Unsuccessful initiatives were made to deaf ears of the United States to reduce the tension that later led to a war. France and Britain also organised international conferences that did not bore any fruits. The Serves Protocol After nationalization of the Seuz Canal, a small meeting convened by British and France took place at Serves, a small place outside Paris. Britain and France solicited support for Israel’s alliance against Egypt. According to the plan, Israel would invade Sinai. This would prompt the intervention of France and Britain, who would purport to separate the warring Israeli and Egyptian forces. As a resolution of solving the crisis, both the allies would instruct both Israeli and Egypt to withdraw of at least 16 kilometres from whichever side of the canal. The allies would then evict Egypt for reasons that controlling such an important route was tenuous and the responsibility needed to be shifted to the Anglo-French management. Both Britain and France had invested interests in the region. Britain wanted to get easy access to her remaining empires while the French were worried about Nasser’s influence on its North American colonies and protectorates. In addition both allies wished that the canal remained open for importing and exporting oil products. On the other hand, Israel wanted the canal reopened for her shipping. She also aimed at strengthening her southern border and weakens Egypt that was a dangerous and hostile neighbouring state. Before the operation, Britain failed consult the United States hoping that Nasser would engage with communist states to persuade Americans to accept her allies’ actions. However, this presented a miscalculated plan that led to the Suez crisis. Strained Diplomatic Relations between the United State and the Soviet Union The United States attempted to woo Nasser into an alliance during a time her policy in the Middle East was perceived strategically important due to the presence of oil. However, she was slowed down by military defence activities in the Far East and Europe. She also lacked enough troops to resist the Soviet Invasion of the Near East.21 A preparatory and planning session was convened to prepare American forces in the event of Soviet invasion of the Near East.22 This resulted to the creation of a form of a NATO organization in the Near East that would provide military power to counter Soviets invasion of the region. The Soviet influence could be projected and thus American supported security system was required to safeguard the region.23 Washington identified Egypt as ‘key’ and point of strength to the Near East. The popularity of Britain and France in the Near East presented a dilemma to the American policy as many locals resented their influence.24 The following years after 1953 had been characterised by unsuccessful attempts by America to persuade powers involved in the Near East. United States wanted both local and imperial powers to unite against the Soviet Union by setting aside their differences. 25She conformed to the philosophy that just as the Soviet Union was used in ending the historic Franco-German enmity, so would the anti-communism end the Arab-Israeli dispute. However, Israeli and Arab’s states continued fights rather than uniting against the Soviet Union continuously puzzled American forces. The American policy seemed uncertain on who to befriend in the Near East. On one hand, she was confused on maintaining good relations with Britain and France (NATO Allies) who were major colonial powers, while on the other hand she desired to support Third World nations.26 Using the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Coup, the Egyptian president Nasser deposed King Farouk. He maintained close contacts with CIA, potential allies from Muslim brothers and the Egyptian Communist Party.27 Washington’s overestimation of Nasser’s friendship with CIA officers in Cairo made them think as an ‘asset’ rather than an enemy.28 In turn, British forces resented the Nasser’s relationship with United States by viewing it as an attempt to push them out of Egypt.29 His closeness to CIA was based on the hopes that United States would act as a restrain the British if they decided to intervene and put to an end the July Revolution of 1952. This was the period until the renunciation of the revolution in 1951.30 Consequently, American officials continued viewing British military presence in Egypt as outdated.31 Nasser’s regime was highly regarded and Washington received consistent positive comments. On the other hand, Washington regarded King Farouk’s regime as anti-American, stubborn, corrupt, and unstable. As a result, American forces highly welcomed the Free Officers’ July coup that overthrew Farouk.32 Both CIA and Nasser’s contacts could not prevent British intervention against the coup due to the deterioration of Anglo-Egyptian relations between 1950 and 52. The British viewed an improvement in an Egyptian government not headed by King Farouk.33 Britain’s efforts to woo Egypt to join an anti-Soviet alliance was received by negativity from President Nasser who categorically stated that the Soviet Union had never occupied Egyptian territory but the British had invaded it for seven years.34 His interests were not vested on an enemy who was far away and had no immediate harm to them, but rather he was more interested in safeguarding the Suez Canal from British powers. British continuously pushed Nasser to the belief that the Soviet Union was posing a danger to the Near East, urging him to stop the differences and renegotiate a deal that would see the Canal Zone base reacquired back by Egypt, and British have technical control over it. A Britain company would also provide training spare parts to Egyptian leaders.35 Nasser’s position remained unshaken, as he did not share Britain’s fear of the Soviet Union extending its power to the Middle East, but rather insisted that he wanted to see an end of British occupation and influence over Egypt.36 Nasser was adamant and strong to change his stand on Egypt’s future. The CIA bribed him to join the proposed Middle East Defence Organisation (MEDO). Even though he took the money, he remained strong and refused to join any alliance.37 He based his refusal on the principal that he was determined to see an Egyptian-dominated Arab league as the defence organization in the Near East. Most importantly, he wanted United States to supply and deliver arms to Egypt at standardised prices.38 Nasser was also unclear on the use of the arms against Israel and rejected an American Advisory Group to be sent to Egypt to regulate and oversee the arms.39 Americans attempt to erect an alliance to keep the Soviet from the Near East was met by a retaliation by the Soviet Union under the management of Nikita Khrushchev who made major efforts to win the third world countries.40 Khrushchev developed a diplomatic offensive that led him to develop a friendliness tactic called “non-aligned” nations, was not in line with Moscow’s traditional policy of treating all non-communists as enemies.41 He realised that treating non-communists harshly was the same as practising anti-communism, which chased away nations. Thus, rather that chasing away potential friends in the third world that had been alienated by Moscow, he was determined to align them to the Soviet Union. However, he made it clear that any armament support was to be done to any left-wing of the government to make sure that their influence with the West was minimised.42 Hopes of aligning Egypt to either of the sides of the powers were not lost. Zhou Enlai, the Chinese Premier had been impressed by Nasser at the 1955 Banding Conference. He recommended him to Khrushchev as a potential ally.43 Nasser was described as a young non-communist nationalist, who could be used correctly to destroy Western interests in the Middle East. The Yugoslavian marshal added by describing Nasser as a non-politically experienced young man who if given the benefit of doubt would get a beneficial influence to join the Union.44 Nasser was perplexed he imported all Egyptian military equipment from Britain. On the other hand, his desire to break British influence in Egypt positioned him to find a new source of weapons.45 Egypt’s Exploitation of Rivalry between Superpowers Nasser’s role as a spoiler between the super powers created a lot of rift among the alliances. He tried to play off the super-powers and thus giving them space to compete with each other as they tried to buy his friendship.46 He first attempted to buy arms from the United States. However, his anti-Israeli speeches and consistent sponsorship of groups raiding Israel complicated his ability to get arms. America was against selling arms that would be used to attack Israel. In addition, there was looming fear in starting a Middle Eastern arms race.47 Determined to keep peace in the Near East, Arabs and Israelis were limited to the extent that they could engage in an arms race. This resulted to the signing of the Tripartite Declaration between the United States, France and the United Kingdom. The declaration limited the selling of arms to the Near East. The declaration actually restricted the number of arms that Egypt could but from the West as a major element in maintaining peace between Israel and Arab. In retaliation, Nasser announced in 1954-55 that he was thinking of getting weapons from the Soviet Union, a tactic that would pressure America to sell the arms he desired to have.48 He made secret talks with the Soviet Union who met his arms demands. This news were received with shock by the West as his act was seen as an act of increasing Soviet Union influence in the Near East. Britain was also worried of losing her oil-rich region. The American policy required Egypt to work towards Arab-Israeli peace and more importantly settle the Anglo-Egyptian Suez Canal dispute. This led to the creation of the Baghdad pact that rejoined Nasser with Americans.49 On the other hand, Britain’s close relationship with Iraq and Jordan concerned Nasser and the creation of the Baghdad act confirmed his fears and he challenged British activities in Egypt leading to the Suez Crisis. Conclusion The main causes of the Suez crisis circled around quests and threats over sovereignty, continuous tensions in the Middle East, and most importantly, the American withdrawal of financial help from Egypt. Additionally, Modern exploration between the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries increased European knowledge of overseas nations, predominantly in America and Africa. Colonial conquest and the fight for sovereignty often allied to these explorations, as most European states endeavoured to increase their military and political power globally. Bibliography Burns, William. Economic Aid and American Policy Towards Egypt, 1955–1981. State University of New York: Albany, 1985. BBC On This Day, 1956: Egypt seizes Suez Canal - http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/26/newsid_2701000/2701603.stm Gaddis, John Lewis. We Know Now: Rethinking Cold War History. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. Darwin, John. Britain and Decolonisation: The Retreat From Empire in the Post Cold War World. Palgrave Macmillan, 1988. Kissinger, Henry. Diplomacy. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1994. Love, Kenneth. Suez The Twice Fought War. McGraw-Hill, 1969. Mayer, Michael. The Eisenhower Years. Infobase Publishing, 2010. Michael, Barnett, Confronting the Costs of War: Military Power, State, and Society in Egypt and Israel. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 1992 Neff, Donald (1981). Warriors at Suez : Eisenhower takes America into the Middle-East. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981. Pikerman, Allen " European Expansion: Exploration And Colonization, 1400-1650." Iberian Golden Age: World History Center, 2002 Retrieved 2014-11-05 from . Roger, Owen. "Suez Crisis" The Oxford Companion to the Politics of the World, Second edition. Joel Krieger, ed. Oxford University Press Inc. 2001. Sylvia, Ellis. Historical Dictionary of Anglo-American Relations. Scarecrow Press, 2009. The Economist. "The Suez Crisis: An affair to remember". Retrieved 2014-11-05 http://www.economist.com/node/7218678 Jul 27th 2006 Turner, Barry. Suez 1956: The First Oil War. 2007 Tripp Charles, "Relations between Egypt and the United States of American in the 1950s", pp. 89–99 from Contemporary Egypt: through Egyptian eyes. Routledge: London, 1993. Thornhill, Michael "Britain, the United States and the Rise of an Egyptian Leader", pp. 892–921 from English Historical Review, Volume CXIV, Issue # 483, 2004. Vatikiotis, Panayiotis. Nasser and His Generation. London: Croom Helm, 1978. Read More