Analysis of the international response to the Suez Canal Crisis
On the 26th of July 1956, the president of Egypt at that time, Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal seizing it from international firm which was under the Anglo French control. The Suez Canal existed in Egypt but it was run by an international company which received the rights to run the company under the Constantinople Agreement of 1888. Under the arrangement that existed prior to the crisis, the international company received $31 million from the Canal while Egypt received $ 17 million from the Canal..The nationalization of the Suez Canal was the beginning of a diplomatic row between Egypt and the international community. The countries that were opposed to the nationalization of the Suez Canal were: Britain, France, Israel and the United States of America.This paper shall analyze the international response to the crisis with specific focus to the following nations: USA, Britain, France and Israeli.
The build up to the crisis and the crisis itself left Eisenhower , the then president of the United States of America, with only two options: to attempt to convince his allies to support the nationalization of the Suez Canal or to join forces with the allies(France, Britain, Israeli) and take military action against Nasser. Given that the elections were looming, it was not prudent to go into war at that time. He had earlier ran for presidency and won on account of his anti-war sentiments. The USA had borne a significant burden during the Cold War and the Korean War therefore to the public; Eisenhower was an icon who could prevent a repeat of these past events. Eisenhower therefore opted to convince the American allies to support the nationalization of the Suez Canal with the aim of ensuring the USA remained the dominant force in the region. This move was tactical since it fortified the position of the United States of America in the Middle East while shutting out Soviet influence which would have proven to be detrimental to USA. The involvement of the Soviet Union in the Suez Canal was the biggest concern that USA had. In fact, in making the decision to support the nationalization of the Suez Canal, Eisenhower was mostly motivated by this fear rather than the impending pressure that his allies were putting on him so that he could recant his stand on the matter.
The initial plan by the United States of America was to avoid any form of military intervention. This was attained through the convention of an international meeting in London which was aimed at constituting an international board to manage operations at the Suez Canal. Twenty four nations met in London at the invitation of the United States of America. Eighteen of the participants at the convention were in agreement regarding plans to constitute an international board to run the canal. However, Nasser was quick to dismiss the plan. The USA was persistent in its efforts therefore proposed the formation of Suez Canal User’s Association by convening another meeting of its allies. However, these efforts were countered by the British and the French who quickly referred the matter to the United States Security Council.
The USA was a signatory to the Tripartite Declaration regarding Armistice Borders which they had signed in 1950. According to this declaration, the signatories which were France, Britain and USA were to allow the sale of arms to continue in the Middle East as long as the states that were buying the arms did not “intend to undertake any form of aggression against another state.” In line with this agreement, the USA believed it would not be prudent to launch military action against Nasser. When American allies resorted to taking military action, the USA reacted by withholding much needed financial support from them until they withdrew their forces from Egypt.
Israeli response to the Suez Canal Crisis
The most aggrieved part in the Suez Canal Crisis was Israeli. The dispute was a threat to its citizens and its security as a nation. As a response to the dispute, Moshe Doyen ordered the Israeli Defense Forces to occupy the Sinai Peninsula in October 1956. Egypt had crossed the line according to Israel. In fact, it had contravened nine security resolutions which had been passed by the United Nations in regard to the security of Israel. Israel therefore opted to aggressively fight for its own existence. Attempts by the United Nations Truce Supervision organization miserably failed since both sides viewed them as impartial in their undertakings. Accusations and counter accusations were therefore often exchanged between Israel and Egypt in the period after the dispute over the Suez Canal arose. The war between Israel and Egypt was not conventional in any sense. Egypt trained Arabian terrorists to infiltrate and kill as many Israelis as they could across the border. These terrorists were referred to as fedayyen. The fedayyen raids into Israeli raised the profile of Nasser among Arab leaders while leading to the death of several Israeli civilians.
Israeli finally decided to avenge the killings of its civilians. The reprisal policy of Israel was along the armistice declaration lines. Israeli strikes into Gaza led to the death of 39 Egyptians, an action that received worldwide condemnation. As a result of the constant fights between Egypt and Israel, the United Nation Security Council passed a resolution which led to the labeling of Israel as an aggressor. The United Nations censored Israel and passed a resolution which was a forewarning. In case Israel failed to heed the warning to cease from further attacking Israel, the United Nations would constitute peace keeping forces.
The war between Israel and Egypt continued to escalate with Nasser making it a personal mission to destroy the state of Israel. Later on, the British foreign minister was forced to issue a warning to Egypt since the prime minister of Israel at that time; David Gurion produced evidence of fedyadden raids in Israel and questioned the logic behind the condemnation of Israel while Egypt remained untouched. The Israeli response therefore did not just touch on the dispute but also attracted the attention of Britain and the United Nations.
Britain’s response to the Suez Canal Crisis
The British had a large percentage of stocks of the Suez Canal. As early as 1875, the British had purchased 353, 204 stocks out of the 800,000 stocks of the Suez Canal. The Suez Canal was a great source of revenue to the British government with records from 1954 indicating that the British made $161, 326,000 from the Suez Canal. Britain was largely dependent on the oil from the Middle East. About 70% of the oil in Europe came from the Middle East hence passed through the Suez Canal on its way to Europe. 79% of the oil imports to Great Britain and France passed through Suez Canal.
At the time of the Suez Canal Crisis, Britain’s oil supply could only last for six more weeks which was slightly more than that of France. The British prime minister at that time was concerned about the maintenance of the vast interests that the British enjoyed in its former colony in addition to the protection of the oil supply to Britain. He therefore reacted to the Suez crisis by attempting to coerce Nasser into submission; an attempt that was largely based on the fact that he wanted the status quo to be maintained. Once this attempt failed, the British together with the French formed an alliance in order to recapture the pride of Britain in the Middle East. Rather than live with the nationalization of the Suez Canal, Britain was willing to engage in war with Egypt in spite of the outcome. The war that was initiated by the British in collaboration with the French was a major flop which cost the British more than it would have cost if they had accepted the defeat of the Suez Canal.
The cost of oil escalated considerably as a result of the decision by the British to engage Egypt in war as Britain required about $600 million in order to pay for oil. They did not have this money therefore they had to rely heavily on the World Bank and Export- Import Bank for funding. As a result of the decline in the revenue from the Suez Canal, the British Sterling Pound weakened considerably therefore the British government needed a $560 million in order to stabilize the pound. In the end, the British troops had to withdraw from the Suez Canal. Once they had withdrawn, the shipment of oil to British was taken over by the United States of America.
French response to Suez Canal Crisis
At the time of the Suez Canal Crisis, the French were having problems with their colony, Algeria. They viewed the Suez Crisis as a threat to their influence in the Middle East. After the rejection of the proposal to form an international body to man the operations of the Suez Canal, the French together with the British opted to report Egypt to the United Nations Security Council. In addition to this, the French cut off all communication with America and focused on forming a strong alliance with the British and the French. USA had little knowledge of the plan hence they assumed that Israel was planning an attack on Egypt. In actual sense, the French were at the heart of planning an attack on the Egyptians. Britain and France went ahead and planned an attack on Egypt without the involvement of the Israelis. Later on, the Israelis successfully executed an attack on Egypt in which 30,000 Egyptians were killed. In response to the attacks, the French were quick to cite the Tripatriate Agreement of 1950. They called on Israel to withdraw ten miles away from the Canal and permit the Anglo-French to continue handling the affairs of the Suez Canal. This move was aimed at fortifying the position of the French in the Suez Canal. In spite mounting pressure from the United Nations, France refused to withdraw from the Suez Canal; a position that was similar to that of Britain. France was keen on sending a message to the Algerian that there were there to stay hence would not relent in their efforts to continue to exercise their influence over their colonies.
The French were also trying to recover from the losses that they had made after the nationalization of the Suez Canal which denied them the rights to profit from their shares in the Suez Canal. The dispute over the Suez Canal was also the start of a diplomatic row between France and the USA. The French Prime Minister at the time, Mollet blamed the USA for instigating the crisis. However, they were somewhat less engaged in the dispute unlike the British and the Israelis. The French were particularly incensed by the decision of the USA to withdraw from funding the construction of the Aswan. Mollet went ahead to claim that he had rejected an offer by the Russians to “bring peace in Algeria in collaboration with Nasser”. However, this attempt failed miserably thus with the USA opting to keep its stand as a firm supporter of Egypt. Later on, the French paid dearly for their involvement in the Suez Canal Crisis. The United Nations called for a cease fire that led to the gradual withdrawal of the troops. At the time of the withdrawal of the troops, the French were in need of $500 million in order to fund their oil exports. USA would not loan them any amount of money until they finally withdrew their troops from the Suez Canal.
Conclusion
The Suez Canal crisis was marked by anger and cries from the international community. Later on military action was taken against Egypt by Israel, Britain and France. The USA on the hand was a supporter of the nationalization of the Suez Canal in order to fortify its position in the Middle East.
Works Cited
Cash, Damien. "Suez crisis. London : Oxford University Press, 2001.
Joseph, Nye. Understanding International Conflicts: An Introduction to Theory and History . New York : Long Time Classics, 2003.
Pierre, Jean Marc. THE 1956 SUEZ CRISIS AND THE UNITED NATIONS. Masters Thesis. Kansas: Fort Leavenforth, 2004.
Thornhill, Michael. ""Britain, the United States and the Rise of an Egyptian Leader." English Historical Review (2004): 890-894.
