US Replacing Great Britain in Middle East: Suez Crisis Reflection Free Essay Example

To install StudyMoose App tap and then “Add to Home Screen”

Evaluation of Sourse

The research question is in what ways and with what results did the Suez Crisis reflect the US replacing Britain as the most influential Western power in the Middle East? This question is important because the results of shifting relations during the Cold War affect American society today. The investigation focuses on the relationship between the US and Britain because the Suez Crisis weaken this alliance, yet the mentioned countries continued to fight against the Soviet Union together after Suez.

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get your custom essay on

“ US Replacing Great Britain in Middle East: Suez Crisis Reflection ”

Get custom paper

NEW! smart matching with writer

The scope of the investigation focuses on 1956 and the following years of the Cold War as evidence of the historical concept of change. Spiegel L., Steven, Heller A., Mark, and Jacob Goldberg. The Soviet-American Competition in the Middle East.

New Britain: Lexington Books, 1987. The source originated from a project initiated by the Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation of the University of California. It is mainly written by three American professos, but contains contributions from twenty two other scholars.

The source was published in 1987. The purpose of the source is to provide insight on the nature of the Soviet-American competition the Middle East and the attempts to control it. To address the purpose, the source defines the military and economic capabilities of the United States and Britain, specifically in regards to their goals and interests in the Middle East. This source is valuable because books are reviewed and edited several times tor accuracy before publication.

The origin is it was compiled by several experts in their field which means it has a range of beneficial perspectives and analysis, which the investigation values because the information has strong arguments from all sides.

This aids the investigation by providing figures that indicate the extent to which the U.S. and UR forces depended on each other for protection, which affects their relations. A value of the purpose is it provides statistics about military aid to the Middle East from the US and the UK over the time in the scope of the investigation that indicate the difference in the allies goals and capabilities, therefore showing the shift in relations. A value of the purpose of this source is it narrows on the United States, a country the research question refers to. However, a limitation of the purpose is the scope does not focus on the Suez Crisis in Egypt specifically, but instead the Cold War in the general Middle East. A limitation of books is they only provide superficial context of the topic at hand. United States of America. Memorandum of Conference with the President October 29" 1956.

Compiled by Colonel A.J. Goodpaster. National Archives. The origin of the source is a memorandum from the national archives. Those speaking8 include President Eisenhower, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, Admiral Randford, Secretary Wilson, and more. The purpose of the source is to document the discussion between President Eisenhower and his national security advisors on October 29, 1956 about the Israeli invasion of the Sinai Peninsula. The meeting was held to debate the United States responsibilities to their allies Britain and France when they have commitments to Egypt as well. Memorandums are a value to historical research by providing purely lactual accounts o an event, including direct quotes. A value of this source is it provides direct quotes, which assist the investigation because quotes give insight to policymakers reasoning behind and means of shifting relations with the UK. A value of the origin of the source is it was originally top secret, so the speakers were candid in their discussion.

The paraphrased dialogue comes from nine speakers, meaning several different perspectives critical to U.S. policy making were presented which is important because a scope ot the Ameican perspective is clear. This is a value of the purpose because eates a representation of how American leaders collectively felt about the events in Suez. A value of the purpose is it creates a representation of the American stand on the Suez Crisis, which can be compared to their later stand for analysis. A limitation of the origin is the source Was documenting a single moment in the Suez Crisis, and does not show any aftermath or actual implementation of the strategies discussed during the meeting. Investigation The nationalization of the Suez Canal on July 26", 1956 initiated the Suez Canal Crisis and effectively developed Cold War conflict in the Middle East not only between Western and Soviet blocS, but within the western bloc itselt. Britain responded to the nationalization, which ended their imperialist empire, by invading Egypt with France and Israel, and consequently deteriorating relations with the United States. The aggression displayed by Britain contrasted the collective identity of the Western bloc which was based upon similar beliefs and goals . The division in US and British foreign policy goals became apparent through the Suez Crisis. Through the use of diplomatic and economic pressure, the US ultimately replaced Britain's infuence in the Middle East, which resulted in heightened Cold War tensions between the US nd SOviet Union.

The Suez Crisis led the Us to take diplomatic action against Bitain in the United Nations. The US and Britain had not voted opposite of each other in the Security Council since 1950 (resolution S/RES/87), and this was the only instance. However when Egypt submitteda complaint against Britain and France in 1956, the US voted to pass the resolution forcing Britain to remove forces from Egypt, and Britain used its vetoing poOwers for the first time. Once the resolution removing allied powers from Egypt was passed, the US had the opportunity to take the position in the Middle East Britain once had. This action was significant because of what was at stake for the US: in 1956 the US needed UK cooperation in case a general war broke out, as the US feared one might with the Soviet Union'. The Eisenhower defense plan combatted a nuclear war by using Britain as a base for nuclear air power to launch retaliation against the Soviet Union. Therefore, the US in the early 50s adhered to UK schemes in the Middle East in order to secure future cooperationt. The US was no longer adhering British foreign goals by condemning their acttons in Egypt. The US made this change in diplomatic relations for three major reasons. First, in 1950 the US, Britain, and France made a pact, the Tripartite Declaration, to support victims of aggression in the Middle East.

Britain had effectively broken that pact by invading Egypt. In addition, France was giving Israel aircrafts in larger numbers then agreed on and without informing the US". President Eisenhower felt "nothing justified double crossing us" and therefore the US had no responsibility to support their traditional allies?. Lastly, The US was attempting to brand the Soviet Union as an aggressor for its actions in Hungary. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles found it imperative for the US to disassociate itself from the UK, who undermined these attempts by showing aggression from the Western bloc'. No one cause outweighs the other, as they all demonstrate the break in goals between the allies and therefore "identity crisis"" of the Western bloc. All causes of the US opposing their traditional ally Britain reflect Britain's dependency on the US, which consequently made them leave the Middle East, setting the stage for US influence. Another institution the US utilized to manage British behavior was the International Monetary Fund". The US put financial pressure against the British pound sterling, causing the British and eventually their partners in Egypt to agree to an immediate cease fire". This is significant because it shows Britain's economic weakness as well as dependence on the Us.

Britain did not have the economic means to continue its influence in the Middle East. This resulted in a vacuum for th fill and ultimately compete with the USSR for the sphere of influence. However, even though the US replaced Britain and their relations seemed tarmished, after Suez they remained allies in fighting the spread of communism. Historian Janice Bially Mattern argues this is a result ot linguistic power politics and narration used during communications between representatives or each country that maintained "norms ot the alliance, allowing the traditional alliance to be a behavioral structure", She uses the fact that no violent action was taken against Britain as evidence, and claims this as the reason the aliance Survived A Significant result of the Suez Crisis is it intensified Cold War tensions by replacing the Britain with the US as the dominant Western power in the Middle East. American policy makers feared the increase of Soviet intluence in the Middle East because of the removal of western power.

The Eisenhower Doctrine in 1957 shows the US was wanting to fill the vacuum where British and French intermational power used to be. In 1947, after World War II, British had military responsibility over the Middle East". In 1957, only ten years later, Eisenhower clearly takes that position when he states in his speech "The United States has no ambition or desires in this region other than that each country there may maintain its independence and peacefully within its self and with its neighbors"4 He also arises the competition with the Soviet Union by condemning "the evil of Soviet conduct5, After Suez both the US and the Soviet Union were now seeking influence in the same part of the world. In conclusion, the US ultimately replaced Britain's influence in the Middle East, which resulted in heightened Cold War tensions between the US and Soviet Union through the use of diplomatic and economic pressure. The Suez Crisis is evidence that Britain needs the US to diplomatically support them in order for their conquests to succeed.

In addition, financial pressure from the US was a factor to Britain seceding from Egypt, consequently leaving a power vacuum the US would fill. American promises of protection over the Middle East replaced Britian's military responsibility, which reflects a shift caused by the Suez Crisis. The US and Soviet Union would now be competing in the same region to spread their ideology, which escalated the Cold War. The Suez Crisis set the stage for significant American involvement in Middle Eastern conflict for years to come. Reflection Working on my investigation about an event that happened sixty years ago but is still incredibly relevant, especially in light of the recent American election, opened my eyes to the role of history and its place in culture. This made me think about how the culture that a historian lives in effects their perceptions of the past.

Historians face the challenge of overcoming bias brought on by the present, and forming an educated opinion instead of a prejudice. In addition, my source The Soviet American Competition in the Middle East highlighted that historians have the difficulty of judging whether there is bias in numbers. In my source, there was noted controversy on the honesty of the figures provided by Soviet data. To me, this highlighted that there is no exact truth in history. Another thing I noticed was inconsistencies on how military assistance to the Middle East was described in different sources because they had different definitions on what countries constituted the Middle East. One source would describe the assistance more drastic than another. This highlighted to me that the same thing might have a different meaning depending on who is using the term, which presents difficulty to historians.