Suez Canal Crisis, 1956

by Dawn Pisturino on August 24, 2022

Suez Canal Crisis, 1956

When Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser claimed control of the Suez Canal on July 26, 1956, he sparked an incident which changed the geo-political landscape forever in the Middle East and elsewhere; undermined remaining vestiges of the British Empire around the world; reinforced the positions of the United States and the Soviet Union as world powers; and utilized the United Nations for the first time in a peacekeeping mission (Department of State, 2021, pg. 1, 2).

Although the Suez Canal was built on Egyptian territory, construction was facilitated by “the Suez Canal Company, the joint British-French enterprise which had owned and operated the Suez Canal since its construction in 1869” (Department of State, 2021, pg. 1). President Nasser wanted to end British and French control over Egyptian interests. He offered financial compensation for the company, but the British and French governments did not accept the offer (Department of State, 2021, pg. 1).

President Eisenhower wanted a diplomatic solution to the conflict. “On September 9, 1956, U.S. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles proposed the creation of a Suez Canal Users’ Association (SCUA), an international consortium of 18 of the world’s leading maritime nations, to operate the Canal” (Department of State, 2021, pg. 1), which did not succeed. Behind the scenes, Britain and France prepared a military plan with Israel’s help “to invade Egypt and overthrow its president” (Department of State, 2021, pg. 1, 2).

On October 29, 1956, Israel – which had been denied all access to the Suez Canal – invaded Egyptian territory. British and French forces arrived two days later, taking control of the zone around the Suez Canal. In response, Nikita Khrushchev condemned the military action and threatened nuclear war with Europe (History, 2021, pg. 2).

President Eisenhower warned the Soviets against the use of nuclear bombs and condemned the British-French-Israeli coalition for the invasion. He threatened to impose severe economic sanctions on the three countries. Britain and France withdrew all troops by December, 1956. Israel followed suit in March, 1957. For the first time, the United Nations assembled a peacekeeping force, the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF), to oversee all troop withdrawals (History, 2021, pg. 2, 3).

In 1954, Egypt and Britain had agreed upon a new treaty which would force all British troops off Egyptian soil in twenty months. After Winston Churchill resigned from office in 1955, he was succeeded by another pro-Empire British official, Anthony Eden. It was after all British troops had withdrawn from Egypt in July, 1956 that “Nasser abruptly announced the nationalization of the Suez Canal Company” Brown, 2001, pg. 2). Outraged, Eden planned the invasion of Egypt.

In the meantime, diplomatic negotiations failed to ease tensions between the offended nations. Finally, Nasser rejected international interference in Egypt’s control of the Suez Canal, and the British-French-Israeli coalition proceeded with the invasion (Brown, 2001, pg. 2, 3).

A ceasefire arranged by the United Nations, under pressure by the United States, halted the conflict. Nasser ordered the destruction of forty-seven ships and blocked the Suez Canal (Brown, 2001, pg. 3).

The invasion diminished the standing of both Britain and France on the world stage. Israel emerged as one of the “most potent force[s] in the Middle East” (Brown, 2001, pg. 3). The Soviet Union and the United States consolidated their positions as world powers, with the Soviet Union condemning continued “western imperialism” (Brown, 2001, pg. 4). Prime Minister Eden resigned from office on January 9, 1957. President Nasser became a hero in his own country. And countries around the world gradually shed the yoke of English and French control (Brown, 2001, pg. 3-5).

Who should have Controlled the Suez Canal

In my opinion, Egypt had the right to control the Suez Canal, based on its location. But the British and the French already had legal ownership and control of the Canal, a privilege they had enjoyed since 1869. Instead of suddenly announcing that he was taking possession of the Canal and Suez Canal Company, Nasser should have negotiated with Britain and France for that control. He could have brought in the United Nations and the United States to help with a diplomatic solution. Nasser’s aggressive stance inflamed tensions in the Middle East and ultimately led to a military confrontation. Furthermore, Egypt had deliberately blocked Israel from access to the Canal since the establishment of the Jewish state. This act of anti-Semitism brought Israel into the military conflict (Brown, 2001, pg. 3).

[Philosopher] Immanuel Kant enthusiastically supported both the American and French revolutions. He would have agreed that British and French imperialism should come to an end so that sovereign nations could chart their own destinies (Orend, 2018, pg. 169). The British and French had not violated Egypt’s rights since they had legally owned and operated the Suez Canal since 1869. It was President Nasser’s personal ambition for Egypt to control the Canal. Once he took control of the Suez Canal Company, he violated the rights of its British and French owners and threatened British and French interests. When the British-French-Israeli coalition invaded Egypt, however, Egypt had a right to exercise Kant’s principles of “the defense, protection, and vindication of the fundamental rights of political communities and their citizens” (Orend, 2018, pg. 170). Either Britain and France should have accepted cash reimbursement for the Suez Canal Company, or the three countries should have continued to negotiate with the help of the United Nations and the United States.

[Just war ethicist Michael] Walzer did not support the invasion of Iraq and would not have supported the invasion of Egypt, because he does not believe “in regime change as a motive for intervention” (Brown, 2018, pg. 213). He would have supported Egypt’s right of autonomy and right to control the Canal since President Nasser had offered to buy that control.

A Shift in the International Order

President Eisenhower was angry at Britain for not revealing its intention to invade Egypt, so he did not support the action or take Britain’s side (History, 2021, pg. 2). He also worried about Soviet intervention in the conflict, so he tried to settle the dispute through diplomatic channels. The British-French-Israeli coalition was determined to take military action and to overthrow Nasser’s presidency, however, and proceeded without the backing of the United States or United Nations (History, 2021, pg. 2).

The United States was not directly threatened by the conflict and had no obligation to get involved. Walzer’s position, in my opinion, is that Egypt was a sovereign nation, and the British-French-Israeli coalition had no legal right to invade the country – let alone overthrow Nasser’s presidency – since “Egypt possess[ed] political sovereignty and territorial integrity . . . [and] attacks on the latter are acts of aggression which the victim is entitled to resist, to enlist the aid of others in so doing, and later to punish the aggressor” (Brown, 2018, pg. 207, 208), which Nasser did by blocking the Canal with sunken ships. Even today, the United Nations Charter only stipulates self-defense as a legitimate basis for war.

Even though Immanuel Kant was eager to see the old regimes fall in his own lifetime and would have been pleased to see the end of British and French imperialism in our own time, his basic belief was that self-defense was the primary just cause for war. He would have supported a peaceful resolution to the conflict.

It’s clear that President Eisenhower was interested in avoiding a larger conflict. Egypt had a right to the Canal since it was located on Egyptian territory, and President Nasser had offered to make full restitution to the British and French owners of the Canal. But Britain and France were both invested in keeping at least some of their colonial territories and were not willing to give up such a valuable possession. They were protecting their own interests while ignoring President Nasser’s ambition to make Egypt independent of British and French influence (Brown, 2001, pg. 1-5).

President Eisenhower was wise to end the conflict and support Egypt’s autonomy even though it meant the temporary closure of the Suez Canal.

References

Brown, C. (2018). Michael walzer (1935-Present). In D.R. Brunstetter & C. O’Driscoll (Eds.),

Just war thinkers: From cicero to the 21^st century (205-215). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge

Brown, D. (2001, March). 1956: Suez and the end of empire. The Guardian. Retrieved from

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/mar/14/past.education1

Department of State. Office of the Historian. (2021). Milestones: 1953-1960: The suez crisis,

1956. Department of State. Retrieved from

http://www.history.state.gov/milestones/1953-1960/suez

Orend, B. (2018). Immanuel kant (1724-1804). In D.R. Brunstetter & C. O’Driscoll (Eds.),

Just war thinkers: From cicero to the 21^st century (168-180). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge

History, The Editors. (2021). Suez crisis. History. Retrieved from