British Failure In The Suez Crisis example essay topic

The Suez crisis preludes to 1948 when the United Nations established the State of Israel on a land claimed by both Jews and Arabs. During that time, Anthony Eden was the Prime Minister of Britain. Britain at that point had already dominated Egypt and stationed nearly 70, troops which led to a " constant tension between the 70,000 British and the Egyptians". (Childs, p. 64) Although Britain enjoyed the right to maintain defense forces in the Suez Canal Zone, Egyptian nationalists constantly demanded that Britain evacuate the area, which eventually happened "under the Anglo Egyptian agreement of 1954".

(Childs, p. 65) In 1656 all British troops were withdrawn from Egypt. After King Farouk of Egypt was overthrown the coup brought an Arab nationalist General Nasser into power. Nasser hoped to carry this revolution beyond the borders of Egypt and into the entire Arab world. This essay will examine the failure of Britain in Suez crisis, which attributed to many factors. In 1955, as the Prime Minister Eden dominated the political power in Britain. A military alliance was concluded and consisted of Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Pakistan and was mainly backed by Britain.

Called the Baghdad Pact "it was designed largely to contain Soviet influence, but its most conspicuous effect was to cut across the internal politics of the Middle East". (Douglas, p. 244) Nasser refused to join the Pact thinking that it would destroy this relationship with the masses since he had hoped to reunite the Arab people by removing the corruptive influences of all types of foreign entanglements. (Microsoft Encarta) One of the primary objectives of Nasser's policy was independence from external control-military, political, economic through which he wanted to create an Arab block which could protect police and financial itself. Later Nasser joined the Bandung block of non- aligned countries then decided " to follow a dynamic, anti- Western policy, helped but not dominated by Communist military and financial aid". (Medlicott, p. 314) Following the Second World War both Britain and France attempted to maintain their influence in the Middle East. These two colonial powers would be severely tested by the rise of nationalism in the region.

Many have later defined the Crisis in terms of an end of an era of colonialism and the beginning of another Pan-Arabism. Britain had developed a number of ways to maintain its influence without direct political control for example through the Commonwealth. Another example was the Baghdad Pact, which Britain hoped to use to keep its foot in the Middle Eastern door. Nasser's reaction to the Pact should have alerted the two colonial powers to the type of opposition their actions would receive. On July 26, 1956 Nasser's nationalization of the Suez Canal occurred. This was one of those series of defiance against the west and four interconnected events paved the way for Nasser's greatest moment: The evacuation treaty of 1954, the Baghdad Pact, the Czech arms deal and the Aswan Dam negotiations.

The nationalization of the British owned Suez Canal company was a threatening matter to the British who were the " biggest single user of the Canal and two thirds of Western Europe's oil was imported via the Canal". (Childs, p. 65) The French reaction was primarily fuelled by Nasser's " encouragement of nationalistic resistance in Algeria". (Medlicott, p. 315) The British along with the French and the American first retaliated by freezing Egyptian assets in their countries. British leaders compared Nasser to Hitler and expressed that there is a possibility for the use of force. Although Nasser promised that the owners would receive compensation for their loss, "Britain, France and Israel began plotting to take back the canal and overthrow Nasser as well". (Jewish Virtual Library) The three countries decided to unite in secret and cook up a plan to deal with Nasser and the crisis.

Both British and French diplomacy had failed in dealing with the situation. Since diplomacy failed both the British and the French eventually sent troops to occupy the canal. Their action was not viewed in favor by the US or the Soviet Union since their intervention signified their predominance in the area. The invasion of Egypt not only stirred trouble in the political arena but also contributed to significant economic problems as a massive speculation was emerging against the British pond and as "the American government refused to support the British currency, the Pri mister Eden was forced into a humiliating withdrawal". (Pugh, p. 224) To solve the existing crisis the US backed UN General Assembly demanded a cease-fire and the withdrawal of all troops right away. The situation had become worse as the British oil supplies were blocked and the "US treasury opposed British requests to withdraw capitals from the International Monetary Fund until it agreed a cease-fire".

(Childs, p. 66) Eventually it was the Canadians who provided a brilliant solution by proposing the establishment of a United Nations peace-keeping force with contributed to the ending of the military operations. By the end of 1956 all British and French troops had left Egypt preparing the way for the UN forces in the country. To begin discussing the failure of British expedition to suez. Suez was the first incident which showed that Britain was no longer the great power it was widely believed to be.

Suez showed that Britain could not act independently of the US and it revealed the precarious nature of the British economy. It also showed the weakness of the special relationship, as the lack of American support undermined Britain. (Childs, p. 67) This contrasted with British participation with American forces during the Korean War and the joining of NATO. The Suez crisis showed that Britain did not have the economy, the military capability or the political will to act as a great power. Suez also showed weaknesses in the capabilities of the armed services and the fact that Britain was becoming increasingly overstretched with extensive commitments throughout the commonwealth. A diminishing military budget which although "large at about 10% of gross domestic product (GDP) was still insufficient to seize the canal as soon as Nasser nationalized it, even with the help of an ally".

(Encarta Encyclopaedia, 2002) The British army was badly armed with much outdated equipment from WWII and also had expensive badly designed new equipment such as the Champ which although intended to replace the US Jeep was four times more expensive less reliable and heavier. The navy and airforce were, however, much better prepared with sufficient planes and ships. Problems did arise owing to insufficient resources being within range of Suez and there was a shortage of transportation for the troops and planes The British military was strategically unprepared for Suez having concentrated on problems such as strategic bombing or convoy protection in preparation for WWII I instead of operations such as dropping parachutists or landing soldiers which Suez required. Britain also faced problems as much equipment was unsuitable for parachute drops.

It's national servicemen who made up a third of the army were also unprepared for war as most were poorly trained, also morale was very low as most never actually never expected to fight. However, discipline and efficiency in these units was usually reasonably good. These weaknesses and the long delay between nationalization and deployment of troops showed that Britain's military was no longer on a par with those of powers such as the US, USSR or even (in some respects) France. Once the war had started British military performance was impressive. Few Egyptian civilians were killed and most Egyptian planes were destroyed on the ground.

Only seven allied strike aircraft were lost along with two French and one British members of the air-crew. This was not be as impressive as it first seems due to the fact that although on paper Egypt's air force was superior to Britains, Egypt lacked well-trained pilots and also anti-aircraft guns and operators resulting in an easy victory for the allies. "Militarily Egypt was easily defeated with 22 British killed and 97 wounded out of the combined Anglo-French force of 22'000". (Encarta Encyclopaedia, 2002) Britain was undermined by the Bulganin letter which threatened Russian 'rocket attacks' on London to which Britain was unable to respond with it's small nuclear force and lack of the Hydrogen bomb. However this threat was never taken seriously as it would entail immediate NATO retaliation. Militarily, despite some problems with deployment Britain was able to easily defeat Egypt which is not surprising due to the fact that at that time Egypt was a weak, third world nation.

Suez exposed Britain's economy as being insufficient to support a sustained military operation without outside help. (Pugh, p. 224) The Suez crisis graphically illustrated Britain's economic weaknesses, the most important of these being the balance of payments deficit causing weakness in Sterling which combined with other financial pressures made Suez unsustainable. Sterling was on a fixed exchange rate (ER) at this time which meant that the government was obliged to intervene in the market for sterling by buying pounds using gold or foreign currency reserves to maintain the set ER. The Suez crisis caused a fall in confidence in Sterling and also added to overseas spending, causing an increase in the already large balance of payments deficit. (Medlicott, p. 316) This necessitated support selling of British reserves buying pounds to maintain the ER. This became necessary as many pounds were being sold and foreign currency was being bought increasing the supply of pounds without which increased demand would cause a fall in the ER.

It was possible to allow the ER to float freely but this however would have meant the end of the economic policy followed since 1951 so was politically and economically undesirable. (Pugh, p. 226) During the crisis this pressure on Sterling increased and proved to be a major factor contributing to the withdrawal as Britain had insufficient reserves to maintain the ER. The fact that Britain could no-longer support Sterling even for a limited period of time showed the extent of the economic decay which had occurred since WWII. British inability to support Sterling meant that a loan was necessary from the IMF (International Monetary Fund) to supplement our depleted reserves. This was effectively controlled by the USA so Britain had to adopt a conciliatory position with regards to American demands. Weakness was also shown as rationing of petrol and other oil related products had to be reintroduced after the USA imposed an embargo preventing export of oil to Britain.

This exacerbated problems being caused by the destruction of oil pipelines in the Middle East and the blocking of the canal, thus weakening Sterling still further making US support necessary. This support eventually came to the desperate British in the form of $561 million from the IMF and the possibility of $738 million more. A loan of $500 million was arranged with the Export / Import bank to finance the purchase of more products most notably oil from the USA. In conclusion the Suez crisis was a turning point in Middle East because it helped the beginning of a series of new eras. Eden resigned and Nasser would use his successful handling of the crisis to catapult himself into the leadership position of Pan Arabism to unify the Arabs under one flag. The power vacuum left by the British and the French was used by the US for further influence in the region.

The British failure in the Suez crisis can be attributed to various factors. The country was emerging from the Second World War with debts and poverty and with a fraction of those markets, which used to constitute the British Empire. Britain's natural resources were not comparable to that of the Soviet Union or the United States and the country was no longer an influential world leader to compete with any of the emerging powers who began to dominate the Cold War era. Britain's dependency on the United States was particularly visible after the distribution of the Marshal aid.

The Suez events stimulated nationalist movement elsewhere thus undermining British influence even more and the only remaining supporting countries in the United Nations were the Commonwealth members New Zealand and Australia. The British Prime Minister Eden's reactions to Nasser's policies are viewed by many historians as irrational and emotional " ignored the fact that many other nations had the same interests in maintaining the flow of commerce". (Pugh, p. 224) Besides external problems with great powers and the United Nations the failure of the intervention was also linked with Britain's economic problems stimulated by the Suez events such as the crisis of the British currency and the shortage of oil supplies along with the blockade of English ships in Suez. Last but not least members of the British parliament were divided and not all of them supported the intervention which eventually humiliated and forced Eden to resign.

1. Childs, David. Britain Since 1945. London and New York: Routledge, 2001.2.

Douglas, Roy. World Crisis and the British Decline, 1929-56. The McMillan Press Ltd: London, 1986.3. McIntyre, W. David. British Decolonization 1946-1997 When, Why and How did the British Empire fall? McMillan Press Ltd: London, 1998.4.

Medlicott, W.N. British Foreign Policy Since Versailles 1919-1963. Methuen& Co Ltd: United Kingdom, 1986.5. Pugh, Martin. Britain Since 1789 A Concise History. McMillan Press Ltd: London, 1999 6. The Suez War of 1956 and the Road to Suez.

Jewish Virtual Library (Internet 2003) web 7. Microsoft Encarta Encyclopaedia 2002 CD-ROM. Microsoft Encarta Corporation.