1

Implications of the Suez Canal

Name

Institution
 2

Implications of the Suez Canal

1. According to this American National Intelligence paper, what are the International

implications for the nationalization of the Suez Canal Company?

Nationalization can be described as the state's process or assumption of control or

ownership of private property. We can also say that it transfers a branch of industry or commerce

from private to state ownership or control.

           In 1956 Egypt's President Nasser decided to nationalize the Suez Canal after the colonial

powers of Britain and France refused to fund the building of the Aswan dam that would cross the

Nile River. The tax revenue to allow shipping access to the canal would finance the project and

money from Russia. (Shupe et al., 1980). This bold move by Nasser infuriated the west. It was

unprecedented defiance by a 3rd world nation towards Western imperialism. Before the

nationalization process, the British and the French acquired all the money made via the Suez

Canal. Egypt at the time needed the money to build the Aswan Dam, and Nasser and Egypt knew

that they were sitting on a gold mine that they couldn't benefit from, so Nasser decided to

nationalize the Suez Canal. Nasser initiated this nationalization process through a speech that he

made.

           Because of Nasser's move, Israel invaded the canal, and soon after, the French and the

British followed suit. But sometime later, the British and the French withdrew from the canal,

and this was after getting pressure from the Soviet Union, the U.S., and the UN, Israel departed

too after some time. From the nationalization of the canal president, Nasser assured himself of

respect from the Arab nations and people as they saw him as a spokesperson and the symbol for

Arabic nationalism. He even got approval from the USSR. Due to the nationalization, it was
 3

clear that president Gamal would not be able to run the canal with a specialty as he did not have

specialized people as opposed to the French and the British nationals.

           The British, French, and Israeli governments, were fearful that Egypt was becoming

closer to Russia that had promised to supply surface to air missiles, tanks, and other weapons to

Egypt. Russian influence over Egypt would threaten oil supplies en route to Israel and Europe. In

October 1956, Israeli forces attacked the Sinai Peninsula; two days later, the RAF and French air

forces bombed Egyptian targets. On the 5th November, British and French paratroops and

Marines occupied positions around the Suez Canal, annexing it.

           The crisis revolved around military control of the Suez Canal. The British, along with the

French and Israelis, had obtained military control over the canal. However, the U.S. threatened a

financial attack on British currency - Sterling - if Britain did not withdraw. Because of post-

World War II economic weakness, the British could not protect their currency, so they were

forced to withdraw. It signaled the end of Britain's role as a world power. It was embarrassing

because the British and the French attempted to call the bluff of the United Nations and lost. It

will be interesting to see if Trump's trade wars prove to be the U.S. 'Suez' - as they attempt to

reassert U.S. 20th century global dominance and lose.

           The Russian government threatened to use Nuclear weapons if Colonial forces did not

withdraw. American President Dwight Eisenhower raged that the invasion had occurred without

informing the American administration. Whereas the Russians had threatened nuclear retaliation,

America used the more effective withdrawal of financial support and trade embargoes against

Britain and France. All forces were withdrawn from Egypt in December 1956. The British Prime
 4

Minister Anthony Eden resigned as PM. This was the final unilateral action colonial powers took

and secured America and Russia as the world's dominant powers.

           Reactions from other countries that sparked problems were well received as many Arab

countries hailed the move. The Egyptian president Nasser was then seen as the spokesperson of

the Arab countries as his nationalization of the canal showed his strengths. The Suez crisis

confirmed something obvious but had yet to be said out loud firmly. The big boys on the block

were the USSR and the USA. France and GBR still behaved as though they were in charge and

could do as they saw fit. They put the USA, their effective boss as of this point, in an

uncomfortable position and were powerfully armed into standing down.

           The consequences were that Britain never acted without American support on these issues

ever again. As well as this, the rest of the world knew that the days of the British as the

predominant force on earth were over. They were well and truly back amongst equals. It was flat

out the most significant loss of prestige in a day I have read about a nation suffering since WW2.

           The British and the French saw this as a move to make other Arab countries follow suit in

nationalizing their resources if it went unchecked. They compared it to Iran's 1936 treaty (Erkan,

2010). With the U.K. in 1951, which collapsed, .and states would significantly jeopardize the

British interests of the oil in the Arab countries. They thought that the successful nationalization

by Nasser would make him popular among the Arabs.

           The U.K. and France were on the decline, but it elevated or possibly confirmed this

decline; the U.S.'s actions towards Britain and France created a distrust of the Americans for
 5

Decades and created a new attitude of anti-American sentiments. It is worth noting that Nasser's

aggressive approach to the west didn't leave much room for France or the U.K. to do anything

other than take back the Suez Crisis. 

 
 6

Section b

Question 2.

How did the United States seek to contain the spread of Communism between 1945 and 1950?

           Human beings are guided by two opposite forces - cooperation and competition.

Capitalism emphasizes the latter, with collaboration resulting as a result of self-interest.

Communism puts complete reliance on collaboration. There have been collaborative societies

called the Commune, and the idea is to implement it on a national scale. In a commune, people

will work together and share the results. They will also vote on the direction of their community.

Strong proponents of Communism believed that the whole world should be turned into a

commune. A key impediment to collaboration, they believed, was the excellent inequality

present - rich, robust control of most of the resources. Since there was no way people would give

up their advantage, there was coercion/force that was a necessary element of Communism.

           This is where Communism diverges from communes. In a commune, people stick due to

their own volition. Their participation is voluntary. If they don't like it, they can always leave.

However, in Communism, there is no chance to leave. Since there was a vision for a universal

commune, everyone had to coopt in the system, so there was violence. Many humans want to

stand out as a result of ambition. Communism saw this as a vice, while capitalism saw that as a

vital force. And as violence was a necessary element of redistribution [no way for Communism

to survive otherwise], it always degenerated into autocracy, with dictators misusing the concept

to fuel their own megalomaniac needs. (Defty, 2004). 

 7

           First, the Marshall Plan was to rebuild Western Europe after the end of World War II then

the creation of NATO in 1949. To stop communist aggression in Europe. Under American

leadership, gave Europe. The most prolonged period of peace and its history. During this period,

the United States deployed different tactics in different areas of the world to curb the spread of

Communism. The U.S. took part in many aggressive policies worldwide and even in America to

fight Communism. The new challenges made the U.S. want to retain what it had fought for

during the world war. We needed to contain the communist ideas coming from the Soviet Union

and, on the other hand, prevent communism spread back home without causing another fight.

           The postwar foreign policy is called "containment." The U.S. confronted the spread of

Communisms with a stick and carrot approach. It provided economic aid (the carrot) and military

aid (the stick) to countries threatened by the Communists, starting with the Marshall Plan/NATO

in Europe in 1948. The foreign aid packages offered throughout the Third World during the Cold

War varied this successful model for the rest of the confrontation. It was successful enough that

it is still the model for much of the foreign aid today, even though the opponent is more often

terrorists rather than Communists. (Eichengreen & Uzan, 1992).

           The United States during this period is understood to have been helping countries that

were allied to it in the communism fight by providing aid to them. This was not the same case for

countries supporting Communism as they did not get any aid from the U.S.

In the Asian parts of the world, the U.S. formed alliances by;

 It ensured that it allied itself with Japan. All this was supposed to help reduce the spread

of Communism around the world.

 8

 In china, the US-supported Chiang Kai Shek and the nationalist party in 1949. This was

because Chiang was the only one who could prevent the control of communists in China.

 The U.S. (still in need of curbing the spread of Communism) decided not to recognize

Mao Zedong and the people's republic of china, instead opting for Chiang Kai.

The United States also deployed strategies in Europe by forming military partnerships with

countries from Europe, which is used to curb Communism in Europe

 NATO in 1949 alliances with European nations was formed, the countries in question

were West Germany, Denmark, Italy, Norway, Greece, and Turkey, among others. These

countries were to protect each other if a non-member country attacked one of their own.

(Sandler, 1999).

 The U.S. also did aid other countries by sending a military force to the countries; a good

example is the berlin airlift to West Berlin, this was where the U.S. brought food to

berlin and other allies after Soviet forces blockaded rail, road, and water access to

Allied-controlled areas of Berlin.

In the African region, the United States tried to curb Communism by 

 The U.S. withheld aid to the Egyptian Aswan dam as Arab countries accepted ties with

communist countries by supporting communist nations.

References
 9

Defty, A. (2004). Britain, America and Anti-Communist Propaganda 1945-53: The Information

Research Department. Routledge

https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9780203495193/britain-america-

anti-communist-propaganda-1945-53-andrew-defty

Erkan, S. (2010). The invasion of Iran by the allies during World War II. Control

Cosminului, 16(2), 109-132. http://atlas.usv.ro/www/codru_net/CC16/2/iran.pdf

Sandler, T. (1999). Alliance formation, alliance expansion, and the core. Journal of Conflict

Resolution, 43(6), 727-

747. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0022002799043006003

Shupe, M. C., Wright, W. M., Hipel, K. W., & Fraser, N. M. (1980). Nationalization of the Suez

Canal: a hypergame analysis. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 24(3), 477-

493. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/002200278002400305