Q. What were the events that led to the Suez Crisis in 1956? How did it deal a final blow to Britain’s self-image as a world power? [UPSC-2014]

Q. What were the events that led to the Suez Crisis in 1956? How did it deal a final blow to Britain’s self-image as a world power? [UPSC-2014]

Ans:

The events that led to the Suez Crisis in 1956:

• Nasser, the new ruler of Egypt, was aggressively in favour of Arab unity and independence, including the liberation of Palestine from the Jews. Almost everything he did, irritated the Western Powers. ©crackingcivilservices.com
• In 1936 Britain had signed an agreement with Egypt which allowed the British to keep troops at Suez. This treaty was due to expire in 1956, and Britain wanted it renewed. Nasser refused and insisted that all British troops should withdraw immediately the treaty ended.
• Nasser signed armed deal with USSR and Russians trained Egyptian army. The USA was outraged at this as the West could no longer control arms supply to Egypt and Americans feared increase in the Russian influence in the Middle East during that Cold War era. Americans therefore cancelled a promised grant towards the building of Aswan dam.
• Crisis point came when Nasser immediately retaliated by nationalizing the Suez Canal, intending to use income from it to finance the dam.
• Britain thought that Nasser was on the way to forming a united Arabia under Egyptian control and communist influence, which could cut off Europe’s oil supplies at will. Eden, British Prime Minister, who recalled Britain’s appeasement of Adolf Hitler in the 1930s, looked to military action which might result in Nasser’s downfall and restore Britain’s influence in the region.
• Secret talks between British, French and Israelis hatched a plan that Israel would invade Egypt across the Sinai peninsula, whereas British and French troops would occupy the canal zone on the pretext of protecting it from damage in the fighting. ©crackingcivilservices.com

[For a quality content, focused preparation and Quick updates, Join our new telegram channel]

It is viewed as a final blow to Britain’s self-image as a world power:

• A Security Council resolution condemning force was vetoed by Britain and France, whereupon the General Assembly, by a majority of 64 votes to 5, condemned the invasions and caused for a withdrawal of troops.
• In view of the weight of opinion against them, the aggressors agreed to withdraw, provided the UN ensured a reasonable settlement over the canal and kept the Arabs and Israelis from slaughtering each other.
  • A UN force of 5000, made up of troops from ten different countries, moved in, while the British, French and Israelis went home.
• The war failed to overthrow Nasser, and his prestige as leader of Arab nationalism against interfering Western Powers was greatly increased.
• The intervention in Suez was a disaster for Britain. The US President Dwight Eisenhower was incensed. World opinion, including that of the United States, together with the threat of Soviet intervention, forced Britain, France and Israel to withdraw their troops from Egypt. In Britain too there had been widespread outrage.
• Britain found its standing with the US weakened and its influence ‘east of Suez’ diminished by the adventure.
• The prestige of Britain was shattered and she became weak. She was now unable to follow a foreign policy independent of the USA. The real balance of power in the post-Second World War had been starkly demonstrated and Britain’s prestige was dealt a severe blow.
• The British action soon lost them an ally in Iraq, where premier Nuri-es-Said came under increasing attack from other Arabs for his pro-British attitude; he was murdered in 1958.
• In the years that followed the British empire rapidly disintegrated as what Macmillan called the “wind of change” blew through Africa and beyond. The failed British intervention stimulated widespread public debate and hand-wringing, embedding Suez into the national consciousness as a traumatic moment when Britain’s influence on the world stage had been dramatically and permanently curtailed.

However, this single event should not be over-emphasised:

• But the Suez crisis did not immediately trigger the wave of decolonisation that brought an end to empire in the 1960s, nor did it cause a sudden and drastic decline in Britain’s global influence.
  • Both of these trends had actually started long before 1956, and would likely have unfolded with or without the spark of Suez.
• Britain had been severely weakened economically by the Second World War, relying heavily on American loans in the decade that followed. With domestic economic pressures mounting throughout the 1950s, it was inevitable that both the size of the armed forces and the scale of overseas commitments would be drastically scaled down in the 1960s.
• Britain’s retreat from the Middle East had also begun well before Suez, as evident in the failure to convert Palestine into a binational state in 1948, or the failure to reverse the nationalisation of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in 1951.
• Decolonisation and the end of empire was also underway well before 1956, given the high costs of maintaining colonial territories and the mounting political pressures and nationalist movements inside Africa.
• Furthermore, the fallout from Suez did not mark an immediate collapse of British imperial power and prestige.
  • The UK gradually disengaged from the Middle East after 1956 (handing over many commitments to the United States), but continued to staunchly defend her oil interests in the region.
  • This included the deployment of armed troops, SAS squadrons and RAF aircraft to help put down a rebellion against the Sultan of Omar in 1957.
• In 1956, one notable outcome of Suez crisis was to accelerate Britain’s turn away from the Commonwealth and towards Europe, beginning a drawn-out process that culminated in Britain joining the European Economic Community in 1973. ©crackingcivilservices.com