Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
The Suez Crisis is an international crisis in the Middle East that happened in 1956 when the Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser proclaimed to nationalize the Suez Canal. The case of this crisis is a great example of a failed national strategy that led to the security problem touching several international actors. There were actions of two superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union along with that of a mediator, the United Nations. This paper provides an analysis of the strategies adopted by these actors during the Suez Crisis.
To begin with, there is a need to characterize the crisis and address what was happening before the event. The case of Suez Crisis was the first major confrontation that occurred during the Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union. It revealed how fragile traditional international relations could become when one or more states acted without superpower sponsorship. In 1954, Abdel Nassar became Premier of Egypt, and after his position, Egypt blocked the Israeli use of the Suez Canal. UN Security Council made a resolution to prevent this action. However, it was never passed, and no formal action was taken against Egypt. In the same year, Britain agreed to leave the Suez Canal region within 20 months.
Egypt’s decision to block access to Israel was driven by their difficult relations in the international arena. While Egypt was turning its side to the Soviet Union by asking for weapons, Israel was building strong ties with the US, ensuring sufficient arms from the country. It seems that Israel believed that strong reprisal was the only option to prevent Egypt. Additionally, the Suez Canal case also demonstrates how individuals’ personalities influenced the ease of international relations. People who were in charge of making decisions were driven by self-interests and acted in favor of their egos. This can be seen from how Abdel Nassar or Moshe Dayan, the Israeli Chief of Staff, was biased and acted to defeat the other side immediately.
During the Cold War, the US and the Soviet Union were competing for a major power. This competition was in almost all aspects of international relations. The conflict of ideologies was seen in the Suez Canal arena, driving the tension to its highest point. Both superpowers wanted to defeat each other in this crisis, thus their strategies were driven by this interest. Indeed, it seems that the US and the Soviet Union did not have the prior intention to mitigate the situation in the region but to demonstrate their superiority to the international community. In turn, for Egypt, the establishment of full dominance in the Suez Canal meant being independent of third-party influencers like those of superpowers. Moreover, the population and elite were tired of the reign of King Farouk and wanted to construct a new reality for their country. During the time of Abdel Nassar, he thought that France and Britain were questioning his credibility to govern Egypt, and that is why he nationalized the Suez Canal. As such, it can be said that the crisis was caused by the power-driven interests of different countries.
With regards to France and Britain, both countries were sensitive to the fact they lost their positions within the area of the Suez Canal in addition to giving up their power in the world. In 1956, France established a quarter of a million troops in Algeria. This made the country seek ways to end the conflict without hurting its image in the worldwide arena. Here, the important aspect for France was to not increase public dissatisfaction with the Algerian situation. However, the dissatisfaction took place and the election of M. Guy Mollet, general secretary of the Socialist party, as Prime Minister. As such, France intended to end the Algerian situation by being involved in the Suez Canal conflict. Britain had many troops in the region near the canal and in the Suez itself. The country was holding great power over these regions and did not want to lose it, as such trying to preserve them at all costs.
To conclude, the Suez Canal Crisis was a transnational conflict that touched two superpowers, the US and the Soviet Union. Several international actors tried to involve in the conflict and gain from it. During the time of the Suez Canal crisis in 1956, both superpowers were intended to be major power and tried to turn the conflict in their favor. For example, the US was funding the Israeli army, while the Soviet Union was providing weapons for Egypt. The crisis can indeed be called the dispute of ideologies that led to the acute security problem in the canal. Despite these countries, there were France and Britain that were afraid of losing their power within the Suez Canal. France was concerned about the Algerian situation and wanted to use the conflict in its favor. Britain was opposed to withdrawing its troops from Egypt as it was strengthening its position.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.