Good Example Of Essay On Suez Crisis

Introduction

Suez crisis is characterized by collusion and deceit that Europe culminated in diplomatic isolation, humiliation, political failure and disconnect of special relationship. The analysis will examine the evidence of the influential political role exercised by the United States and United Nations. This analysis will assess the political objectives of France, Egypt, Israel and Britain during the conflict. It will also examine the immediate outcomes of key participants against their political agenda. The analysis will summarize that, Egypt transpired form the crisis as apolitical victor. Conversely, the Anglo-Franco-Israeli political objective to oust President Abdel Gamal from power, upturned and Abdel victory rekindle the Arab nationalist fire. Perhaps, Nasser became a political icon in the Arab world, while French and British imperial goals to return the Suez to western control were bungled. Ultimately the Britain and French were forced by United Nations to withdraw, as Egypt powerfully took control over the Suez Canal.

Background

During the post-world war II, the Suez Canal was still significantly a strategic economic and military value to Europe. Apart from the reasonable revenue tolls generated by the French and British coffers, approximately 70 percent of Middle East oil traversed through Suez Canal to Europe. The Suez was also used as a military corridor to east African countries. Importantly, the Suez was a lifeline t both the French and British empires, in that keeping control of the Suez Canal was essential.
The political strategy portrayed by Egypt during the 1950s, in effort to establish international position, concentrated on stabilizing the relationship between the Britain and United States, perhaps for military support from Soviet Union and economic support. Nasser pursued a policy to secure funding from United States and Britain as well. Conceivably, the policy developed mistrust in Nasser Gamal, which destabilized Egypt’s relationship with her colonist. As a result, the wests withdrew from financing the dam project. Although, this move was perceived as a great blow to Aswan dam construction, it was rather an economic strategy sought by President Nasser. The president then achieved a strategic surprise by nationalizing the Suez Canal.
After the successful nationalization of the Suez Canal in 1956 by president Abdel Nasser Gamal, the president argued that the country required the funds, so that Egypt could replace the finances for constructing the Aswan Dam. Nasser pursued revenue tolls from the French and British coffers, in order to achieve the economic strategy, which helped secure revenue tolls for Aswan Dam construction. In fact, the primary reason for Suez nationalization and the Suez crisis in Egypt was purely economic. The second objective was actually to rid Egypt and the Arab society from western colonial domination. Ultimately this agenda by Nasser secured true independence from western powers. Conversely, Abdel’s action was an act of revenge against the French and the British, who previously had held control the organization that controlled the Suez Canal. Consequently, the French and British withdrew their troops due to the strong American pressure.
Perhaps, the American reactions to Egypt’s President Decision was to defuse the war scenario, in order to reduce the likelihood of adverse military clash. Eisenhower dispatched Dulles to London in efforts create and internal board operating the Suez Canal. Twenty-four countries met, including the original Constantinople Convention signatories along with maritime powers and major users of the Suez Canal. 6 days later, Nasser rejected their plan in a delegation led by Australian Prime Minister, Menzies. The western allies met again in London to create a second proposal plan in efforts to diffuse the situation, The French and British presented the Suez crisis to the United Nations Security council. Simultaneously, the United States had objected the involvement of UN in the dispute. Conceivably, the American government worried that, the UN could fail to contain the Suez crisis, in that such demonstrable significance would irreparably destroy the efficacy and reputation the young international organization. Nasser again rejected the British London conference claims and forced them to meet Menzes proposal requirements, which resulted into a stalemate. At this point, sensing United States opposition, the French and the British ceased communication with the American regarding their military plans. French, British and Israeli troops amassed Cyprus Island and Jordanian border. After the American learned about the orchestrated plans, Eisenhower proposed that, the Soviet Union should join forces with United States against the European power allies. Eisenhower attempts to bring peace in Middle East was supported by United Nations that called off a cease fire.
Consequently, the American concerns about the European and soviet invasion in the Middle East. Despite that, Eisenhower had the freedom and power to assure United States security. Indeed, the America’s security was at this time undoubtedly the preeminent economic and military power in the world. The United States possessed an overwhelming conventional and strategic force. They were actually not subject to the foreign oil as opposed to the western allies. Moreover, unlike the French and British, the United States had no financial interest in the Suez Canal project. Virtually, Eisenhower had secured a domestic position as well as the international during the Suez conflict. The United States had clear political and personal power to advocate any policy they chose. Perhaps, Eisenhower caution on Suez conflict can be demonstrated as deserving and noteworthy because the American president possessed the power to aggressively influence Middle East probably larger effect.
Both countries saw the Suez seizure as a blow to their colonial position in the Asian and African worlds. On the other hand Eisenhower’s stance about the Suez conflict is quite different compared to the Europeans, partly because the United States had different stakes and objectives in the Suez, as opposed to the French and British. At the same time, the Suez conflict, the United States had a powerful military to exert its interest on Egypt, but Eisenhower did not do that. Immensely, the Americans made no military attempt to influence President Abdel Nasser into any sort of concession with regard to the Suez Canal. Perhaps, Eisenhower decision was an adverse risk taking, possibly he pursue a tiny sure gain as opposed to the other western allies who were for bigger gains. This exercise made the United States military prestigious and an American stature within the 3rd world. Eisenhower gamble was a move that developed options that they could participate in future military intervention, and perhaps consolidation between them and the western doctrines. Potentially this gamble in the Middle East presented a possibility of intimidating prospect aggressors.
America participation in Suez conflict provides a perfect scenario of risk avoidant decisions. Undoubtedly, the western allies exerted enormous pressure on Eisenhower to force his military to engage in Egypt war, actions that would support their desires. Perhaps, Eisenhower acceded the wests request.

Conclusion

In summary, the consequences of the Suez Canal crisis were felt at both regional and international levels. Perhaps, 1956 was characterized by dramatic post war events. Conversely the invasion combination of Egypt, Israel, French and British, and particularly the stressful time for President Eisenhower. The conflicts was dramatic because it induced analogies and memories for all involved participants. President Eisenhower was perhaps the domain gain, possessing massive political popularity, and leading primarily military power and economic in the world. The president cautious decision for supporting Abdel Gamal, against the Europeans, made him the most ethical, best legal and military during those times. Meanwhile, the crisis theory explains the adverse actions taken by Mollet and Eden with the international context. The crisis marked a watershed in the history of French and British imperialist power, and relatively the advent of United States and Middle East as an important player in global politics. Consequently, Egypt transpired as the most outstanding victor of the Suez Canal crisis, perhaps in the short term. Consequently, the Suez Canal was recognized globally as the sovereignty of Egypt, while the Soviet revenue was secured to construct the Aswan Dam. Apparently, President Nasser Gamal had presented himself as the Arab world leader who was against anti-western allies, while promoting pan-Arab nationalism. In addition, the Suez conflict saw France and Britain and France not only fail to attain their political goals, but also succeeded in destroying their domestic economies and international reputation. Israeli on the hand attained significant gains form the crisis.

Works Cited

Nicholas, David A. The 1956 Suez Crisis. Sydney: Macmillian , 2003.