The Seizure Of Nasser's Nationalization Of The Suez Canal

Furthermore, Egypt then gained its independence in 1922, it being granted by the British; but the much of the British remained in the northern region of Egypt and in the duration of World War II, Egypt and the Suez Canal were fundamental connections in the empire of Britain. A government was then under king Farouk in 1936 but the government was very inefficient and corrupt. Egypt was not very happy with Britain’s control of the Suez Canal. In the year of 1952, army officers commenced a revolution to overthrow King Farouk and in 1953 a republic was established in Egypt. The leader of this revolution was Colonel Gamal Abdel Nasser and became the

Some of the motivations were seen with positive attitudes about the acquisition with the pro imperialist who benefited the economy in documents 2, 5, and 12. During the acquisition, the purchase of the Suez Canal was seen more of a positive attitude towards the government it was a nationalistic attitude. Benjamin Disraeli discusses

The Suez crisis was a conflict that could have easily turned into a third World War. With a battle between the Israelis and Egyptians at Sinai, the British and French invasion of Egypt, and nuclear threats from the Soviet Union, all of the elements were present to escalate the conflict and pull other countries into the fray. Canada had no direct ties to the Suez crisis, in terms of control or economic interest. However, Canadian Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Lester B. Pearson, persuaded the UN General Assembly to send in the United Nations Emergency Force. Even though Lester B. Pearson dismayed the Commonwealth with his measures for peace, Canada was recognized for starting the first ever United Nations Peacekeeping mission.

Document 4 explains nationalization of of African territories. Following the conclusion of the Second World War, the Egyptians decided to pass laws in order to evacuate the British military from the Suez Canal area. As implied in Document 4, during the month of July 1956, President Gamal Abdel Nasser exemplified the nationalization of the area. Nasser perceived that if here were to bring nationalism to the Suez Canal, then he could assign a fee to the citizens that were not welcome. With this fee, he would influence the construction of a newly structured dam, hovering the Nile River of Egypt. Nasser understood that by nationalizing this canal, the world, and especially the British and French stockholders that were in ownership of the Canal Company would be taken aback. Even though President Nasser pledged that Canal Company would receive a significant amount of affluence for the loss of their property, the British, French, and Israeli societies decided that they would initiate a procedure to re-obtain their company, and overthrow Nasser. These countries formed a secret alliance, historically known as the tripartite collusion. The Israel society decided that they would engage in procedures opposing the Egyptian society in hopes of obtaining approval from many of the western nations. This was because they were limited on resources, not very well developed, and were very fearful of being authorized by an Arabian

In the article, “The Eisenhower Doctrine, 1957”, it states, “Under the Eisenhower Doctrine, a country could request American economic assistance and/or aid from U.S. military forces if it was being threatened by armed aggression from another state.” This line portrays the purpose of the Eisenhower Doctrine. It explains how this doctrine allowed other countries, if at risk or put in danger by another area, would be allowed to asked for American assistance, whether it be economy or military assistance. In addition, it had “singled out the Soviet threat”, as mentioned in the same article. In other words, this policy was created in response to groups such as the Soviet Union and their goal of expanding communistic methods, also known as the Soviet Threat. The Eisenhower Doctrine was influenced through events such as the Suez Crisis of 1956. In the Suez Crisis of 1956, a larger tension had broken between Egypt and British and French leaders after Egyptian President, Gamal Abdel Nasser, had forced British troops to leave and give the Suez Canal into Nassar’s command. Due to this, Eisenhower, who was against the spread of communism, had allowed for U.S. military troops to be sent over so that communism wouldn’t be used, which relates back to the Eisenhower Doctrine and its purpose. Later on, the Eisenhower Doctrine was used and applied to the Lebanon Crisis 1958. This crisis also relates back to communism and the Soviet Union/Threat. The Lebanon Crisis of 1958 was a Lebanese political crisis caused by political and religious tensions between Lebanon and Egypt, and had included U.S. military intervention. The citizens of Lebanon and other leaders, such as Nassar, had questioned their President, Chamille Chamoun, for continuing to have ties with the West, leading to high amounts of tensions between Chamoun and his citizens. Due to the numerous amounts of conflicts arising and the risk of being

Not only was the Ottawa process a great exemplar of political diplomacy, but so was the Suez Crisis. The Suez Crisis was created by tensions between the partnership of Great Britain and France, the United States, and the passive threat of the Soviet Union, as the Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nassar took control of the canal, a major route for Britain’s oil transportation (Tattrie). Tensions were rough already due to the Cold War, and Canada held an important mediation role to prevent a potential third world war.

The very river that kept destroying the labor and engineering of the workers, along with causing the mudslides that buried them. After, spending about $287 million and 20,000 worker’s lives, while making little progress in 8 years, it was no wonder why Lesseps quit the canal, in December 1888.

The American government is known to promote democratic values throughout the world. Though the ideals America was fighting for during the Cold War, the government still managed to participate in the overthrow of democratically elected Prime Minister, Mohammed Mossadegh. Mossadegh threatened to nationalize Iran’s oil in 1951 and later gained the support of the Iranian government. The British companies had many investments in Iranian oil. It is with the approval of nationalization that the economies of both British and Iran were ultimately harmed. The British government requested the help of the US so that they could perform a coup to overthrow Mossadegh. With suspicions of Mossadegh supporting communism, and being supported by the Tudeh Party, the United States government was willing to sacrifice their democratic ideologies and credibility in the region for the insurance of an anti-communist leader. This would prove to cause problems that still resonate in today’s political and military negotiations in this region.

Eisenhower’s view that the way to prevent the spread of communism to the Middle East was by promoting stability in the region between both the Western powers and the Arab powers went on to guide his policy towards the Middle East. Eisenhower’s goals for US involvement in the Middle East “reflected the president’s own cold war ideology and included promoting regional stability, guaranteeing the free flow of Middle Eastern oil to Western Europe, supporting Arab nationalism and Israeli independence, improving relationships with the Arab states, hastening the decline of European empires, maintaining the solidarity of the Western alliance, and avoiding an arms race between Israel and its Arab neighbors, with the United States and Russia the principal arms suppliers” (Ambrose 328-329). The President’s commitment to these goals of maintaining relationships and containing communism accounts for many of the trends that would characterize Eisenhower’s conduct in the Middle East. Among these trends were: Eisenhower’s reliance on frequent-but-informal consultations with a small number of appointees; his tendency to try and delay the inevitable for as long as possible as to allow for planning; his hesitation towards nearly any action, whether it be to take action or to cease taking action; his encouragement for vagueness and secrecy pertaining to the Crisis; and finally, his ability to firmly and effectively communicate his full executive power. Eisenhower’s

The debt reached 100 million pounds and the Egyptians had completely lost control of their country. Britain decided to colonize Egypt and control them as a protectorate. The protectorate allowed the British government to control Egypt's economic and political decisions without intervention from the Egyptians. In other words, Egypt was such a weak country at that time. Later, Egypt's finances were taken over by the foreign countries which is Britain and France. Through the colonization of Egypt, Britain gained control of the Suez Canal, a major part of the world's trade routes. With this advantage, Britain decided to heavily tax the ships which passed through. Egyptians thought that the taxes would be put into improvements of their nation or the Suez Canal itself, but the money went straight to the British government as profit. Finally, the news reached to the public that Britain had colonized Egypt. Immediately, the Egyptians began to leave the country. British had to act quickly, for they knew that without the Egyptians to maintain the land and canal, the profit would be lost. The British government decided to impose heavy public taxes on the Egyptians, forcing many to work the lands and never leave the country in order to pay them

During the Suez Crisis of 1956, Eisenhower condemned the Israeli, British and French invasion of Egypt, and forced them to withdraw. He also condemned the Soviet invasion during the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 but took no action. In 1958, Eisenhower sent 15,000 U.S. troops to Lebanon to prevent the pro-Western government from falling to a Nasser-inspired revolution. Near the end of his term, his efforts to set up a summit meeting with the Soviets collapsed because of the U-2 incident. In his January 17, 1961 farewell address to the nation, Eisenhower expressed his concerns about the dangers of massive military spending, particularly deficit spending and government contracts to private military manufacturers, and coined the term "military–industrial

The Suez Canal crisis of 1956 displayed a side of Canada previously unseen by the world. Prompted by Egypt blocking off the canal, a primary oil transportation

Background: In the midst of the Cold War and the Arab-Israeli conflict, conflict arose over Gamal Abdel Nasser’s nationalization of the Suez Canal. This was of particular concern due to Nasser’s increased connection with the Soviet Union, through the Czech Arms agreement and the Aswan Dam. Following Nasser’s nationalization of the Suez Canal, Great Britain, France, and Israel invaded Egypt. In facing this crisis, the U.S. had to consider Cold War politics with the Soviet Union, relations with Arab and Israeli nations, and relations with the invading powers

In 1956, Gemal Abdul Nassir announced that he wanted the nationalization of the Suez Canal. This canal has been operated by Britain and France since the 18th century and due to this, tensions rose between Egypt, Britain and France. Israel regarded Gemal Abdul Nassir as a threat to its national security and due to this it was easy for Britain and France to convince Israel in the invasion of Egypt and the overthrowing of its president. Israel invaded Sinai Peninsula, Britain and France landed their troops later on the pretence of separating the fighting parties. This was the start of the Suez crisis. The USA condemned their actions and forced the three parties to withdraw and this made it possible

The Suez war began in 1956 when the President Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal. Due to the canal’s great importance to the British and they colluded with Israel and France to regain control of the canal. The Suez Canal was especially important to the British because it connected the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean through the Red Sea. (Milner) This strategic location allowed them to trade and move across the world giving them control of their colonies. However, on July 26, 1956 President Nasser decided to nationalize the Suez Canal due to his anger at the British for withdrawing their loan offer to Egypt. (Milner) Consequently, the nationalization of the canal was a strategic move to lessen the British’s economic and political control of Egypt, which had lasted since 1882. Many Egyptians were unhappy with British’s occupation of their country so Nasser’s policies were popular in the Middle East. This was because the “expression of national