Posted on 08/05/2006 9:50:10 PM PDT by Nextrush
Anthony Eden held an emergency cabinet meeting at 10 Downing Street into the early morning hours of July 27th, 1956.
Eden told the American diplomatic representative at the meeting that "The Egyptian has his thumb on my windpipe. Tell Mr. Dulles I cannot allow that."
Eden had promised that his deals with Nasser would make the Egyptian ruler more friendly. Seizure of the Anglo-French owned canal proved that promise wrong.
He spoke that night by phone with the French Foreign Minister Pineau.
The French were eager to work with their newfound friends in Israel to launch military action against Nasser and now Eden seriously considered the option.
Eden wanted to work with the United States to give a diplomatic ultimatum for international control of the canal.
If Nasser refused as expected then Britain and France could act militarily on behalf of international protection of the canal.
Meanwhile, within 48 hours British and Franch military leaders met and figured out it would take six weeks to assemble, equip and train the military forces needed to retake the Suez Canal. This would for better of worse open up a window for diplomacy.
Some 50 thousand British and 30 thousand French troops were to participate using Cyprus and Malta as bases.
In London on Monday July 30th the British and French foreign ministers met with Robert Murphy, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State. Murphy quickly realized that Anglo-French military action was envisioned and he summoned Secretary of State Dulles to join the talks.
Dulles flew in July 31st and tried to cool down British and French plans to take military action.
French Foreign Minister Pineau was particularly upset by Mr. Dulles' attitude considering that American action to withold the Aswan Dam funding led to the canal seizure.
Dulles eventually got Britain and France to agree to a canal users conference that would find a diplomatic solution or least that's what he hoped.
Anthony Eden made it clear he saw Nasser as fomenter of Middle East trouble and a new Hitler that would eventually threaten oil supplies.
Britain and France felt they had to act militarily rather than become third rate powers being economically strangled by Nasser.
Considering that Nasser was Soviet backed, the prospect of a wider war loomed large in the minds of many people.
Twenty two maritime nations met in mid-August in London where a plan was drafted calling on Egypt to allow international control of the canal.
Prime Minister Menzies of Australia was selected to present the idea of an international operating authority to Nasser.
Menzies went to Nasser, who rejected the idea outright. Menzies felt that his presentation was undermined by public comments from President Eisenhower. Eisenhower said "the Suez Canal is not of primary concern to the United States."
Nasser had plenty to contemplate as August moved on including British and French announcements that reservists were being called to duty.
He countered Menzies with a plan for a new treaty to replace the old 1888 convention guaranteeing unrestricted passage through the canal for all nations.
The new treaty would be guaranteed by the United Nations.
British reaction to Nasser's proposal was skeptical. A Foreign Office spokesman said "Nasser's word is meaningless, the Security Council is at the mercy of the Soviets veto and the Assembly is too capricious to be be the custodian of Britain's future."
Previous one was: http://free republic.com/focus/f-news/1658589/posts
Something to think about as we consider what the UN is up to even now.
It seems that the Condi/Frog talk about buffer forces around the Bekkah Valley and south Lebanon is just necessary cover for the continued IDF movements to clear and destroy the Hezzi/Iranian brigade shooting rockets. The talks at the UN won't conclude anything soon.
More to the point, if the US had not prevented the British and French taking Nasser out, we might not be in the present trouble, and France might have been more co-operative over the last 50 years.
It was time when France was on the side of Israel and USA was against.
Or we might have had an anti-western Arab coalition at a time when the Soviets were in a position to exploit that and make them much more dangerous...If you're going to play with 'what-if' scenarios, at least remember they're as likely to go bad as good.
"Or we might have had an anti-western Arab coalition at a time when the Soviets were in a position to exploit that and make them much more dangerous.."
We got Nasserism, the prototype for Socialist pan Arab States, including Syria and Iraq, both Baathist (Socialist). We also got the French harbouring Khomeni and leading to the replacement of the Shah of Iran with the present crew.
I don't think it could have been any worse.
Ever wondered why all sides of French politics have been anti American since the 50's. Maybe when they found out that the US would act directly against French national interests at Suez had something to do with it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.