(My answer on Quora)
By loss of the Suez Canal I am assuming you are referring to the Suez Canal Crisis of 1956 in which case the crisis represents a point of decline for the Empire but not the definitive driver for the Empire’s demise. The latter predates the events of 1956. The granting of Independence to India in 1947 was likely the trendsetter in that respect or indeed World War Two before that.
What the crisis does signify though is the historical starting point where Great Britain’s political clout was clearly playing second fiddle to that of the United States. It was no longer the principal Western power globally.
To understand this distinction one has to look at the nature of the Suez Canal Crisis.
Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalized the Canal on July 26th, 1956 in response to the American decision not to finance the building of Egypt’s Aswan High Dam. The Americans were concerned about Nasser’s close relationship with the USSR and other Warsaw Pact Allies.
At the time the Canal was jointly controlled by British and French holding companies. Diplomatic efforts to avert a crisis had been underway some time before the closing with the canal’s gateway, as a conduit for Petroleum transportation in particular framing the immediate necessity.
However when it became clear that Nasser was unlikely to compromise on his intent (although the Egyptian leader did offer financial compensation for the corporate entity that owned the canal) an alliance was created between Britain, France and Israel.
Why the Suez Canal matters Source: Daily News Egypt
Nasser had effectively declared war against Israel earlier on by his blockage of the Straits of Tiran at the moth of he gulf of Aqaba. He also had for some time spearheaded Egyptian commando raids into Israel proper.
U.S. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles did offer an alternative to likely Anglo-French occupation that involved the establishment of a Suez Canal Users’ Association (SCUA) consisting of 18 countries that would be entrusted with the Administration of the Canal. This notion as well as other efforts at US mediation failed.
On the 19th of October, 1956 several months after the closing Israeli forces moved advanced on the canal in what became known as the Sinai Campaign. They drove back the Egyptians. The United Nations intervened demanding a ceasefire. British and French troops then occupied the canal (following landings at Port Said and Port Faud) on the 5th and 6th of November under the pretext of enforcing the UN ceasefire.
The Eisenhower Administration was angered by the Anglo-French action, in that it opened up the distinct possibility of Soviet intervention in the region. The Americans threatened both countries with economic repercussions and forced through a resolution in the UN demanding immediate withdrawal.
Suez Canal Crisis Map: source: Weapons and warfare
Washington turned the screws on its two allies and the British and French backed down. They did not have the economic clout to match the United States and the Americans knew it. Anthony Eden, the British Minister lost face as a result of the incident and resigned in January 1957.
Anthony Eden. British PM at the time of the Suez Canal Crisis. Source: history.com
From the British perspective it was clear that effective power had definitively crossed the Atlantic and resided now with the Americans. The US would go ahead and initiate the Eisenhower Doctrine which promised aid to any countries in the Middle East that were threatened by aggression. It has served as the basis for US foreign policy in the region ever since.
Source:
No comments:
Post a Comment