North Africa and the Middle East - 1947-196 Flashcards

1
Q

What was Britain’s relationship and involvement with Egypt and Sudan post-WW2? Why was Egypt still effectively under British control?

A

-In the inter-war years, Egypt had already been granted formal independence from Britain in 1922 following the British ‘Milner Report’ - no longer a ‘veiled protectorate (Egypt was never a colony!).
-However, because Britain refused to recognise full Egyptian sovereignty over Sudan (ruled under an Anglo-Egyptian condominium agreed in 1899 - i.e both Britain and Egypt agreed to shared sovereignty of Sudan), Egypt continued to be a British client state (so still somewhat subordinate) until 1954 - see ahead.
-British troops remained in Egypt until the Anglo-Egyptian treaty 1936, whereby it was agreed that British troops would withdraw from Egypt, but continue to occupy the Suez Canal Zone.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Why was the Middle East such an important British spehere of influence after WW1 and WW2? Why was the Suez Canal still so important to Britain? How did Britain exert their claim to dominance in this area?

A

The Middle East was an important British sphere of influence - Iraq and Palestine had been seized from Ottoman Turkey as mandates after WW1.

-Even following the post-WW2 British withdrawal from Palestine in 1948, and after the loss of Iraq to King Faisal I in 1932, Britain still had control over Aden (South Yemen) and its oil installations, Cyprus and air-force bases in Iraq. Britain also financed and provided offices for the Jordanian Army which further gave the illusion of a strong presence in the region.
-The loss of Egypt, the leading Arab nation, in 1922 was not the end of British influence in the country, or in the Suez Canal Zone.

Suez Canal:
-Britain still had 10,000 troops in the Suez Canal Zone (as per the 1936 Anglo-Egyptian treaty).
-The Suez Canal, finished in 1869, had been the quick route to India and was thus a central focal point for investment, as well as a factor for wider British investment into Egypt as a whole (high quality Egyptian cotton attracted British textile manufacturers).
-The Canal itself was not under the ownership of any public authority or state - it was privately owned by the Suez Canal Company, which itself was owned by private shareholders (most of whom were French) and the British government - a joint British-French enterprise.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Why was Britain concerned about the maintenance of its influence in the Middle East by 1947? How did Britain try to cover for itself using Arab nationalists?

A

By 1947, Britain were fearful of communist Russia’s ambitions in the Middle East.

-Britain tried to negotiate with the Arab league, a nationalist organisation of North African and Middle Eastern Arab countries, to persuade them to resist communist infiltration.
-But, the British found that the Arabs were not prepared to support Britain as long as they maintained their Suez garrisons (troops) and control in Sudan (where its presence was seen as an offense to Egypt).
-Overall, Arab nationalists were less and less keen on securing Britain’s interests, and more sympathetic to the USSR.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Who was the King of Egypt post-WW2? What did he do in 1951?

A

King Farouk of Egypt - had inherited the throne in 1936.

Post-WW2:
1951 - Farouk independently renounced the 1936 Anglo-Egyptian treaty, which had seen 10,000 British troops allowed to stay in the Suez Canal Zone.
-Farouk also declared himself as King of Sudan.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

When was King Farouk overthrown? Who led this military coup? What were their reasons?

A

January 1952 - Farouk overthrown by a military coup.

-The coup was orchestrated by a group of army officers led by Colonel Gamal Abdel Nasser.
-His extravagant playboy lifestyle unravelled as he gained a reputation for corruption and economic incompetence.
-The military blamed Farouk for Egypt’s poor performance in the 1948 war with Israel.
-Farouk was also blamed for allowing British troops to gain such influence in the Canal Zone.
-Farouk luxuriously lived the rest of his life in exile in Italy.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Who was Colonel Gamal Abdel Nasser? What had he led in 1952? What were his beliefs on British influence in Egypt?

A

Colonel Nasser was an Egyptian military officer.

-Nasser had organised and led the military coup in Egypt in 1952, which brought down King Farouk and led to Egypt being declared as a Republic in 1953.

Beliefs:
-Nasser was a ferocious opponent of Western imperialism.
-He wanted to get rid of foreign influence in Egypt and was determined to establish Egypt as the leading power in the Middle East.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What was Britain’s reaction to the military coup in 1952? Who was the Foreign Secretary at this time? What 2 agreements were made in 1953 and 1954? What was the significance of each agreement? What was Britain’s concession in 1954 a sign of?

A

Britain immediately sought to negotiate with Egypt’s new rulers - President Mohamed Naguib.

-This negotiation was led by Anthony Eden, the Foreign Secretary in Churchill’s 2nd administration (1951-55).

Agreements:
-1953 - with Egypt now a Republic, an agreement was made on stages towards Sudanese independence - Naguib still president. Sudan granted independence in January 1956 as the Anglo-Egyptian condominium was terminated.
-1954 - in exchange for certain rights to the Suez Canal, Britain agreed on a phased withdrawal of British troops from the Suez Canal Zone over the next 20 months.
-In return, the Egyptians promised the British free access to the Suez Canal, the maintenance of former British bases, and that they would respect the independence of the Suez Canal Company.
-This British concession of a phased withdrawal, not only reflected Britain’s desire to improve Anglo-Arab relations, but also highlighted British financial difficulties - the British couldn’t afford to fortify their Suez garrisons to resist the constant nationalist guerrilla attacks.
-Marked the end of Egypt as a British client state.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

How and when did Colonel Nasser take the reins of power in Egypt? What was the significance of Nasser’s leadership in terms of the 1954 agreement?

A

November 1954 - Nasser took the reins as chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council from November 1954, replacing President Mohamed Naguib.
-Naguib had been placed under house arrest after a 1954 attempt on Nasser’s life by a Muslim Brotherhood member - Nasser had to be careful.

Significance of Nasser’s leadership:
-Nasser had helped in 1954 to negotiate the phased withdrawal of British troops from the Suez Canal Zone.
-Nasser now saw himself as the leader of the Arab world.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

How did the 1954 settlement between Egypt and Britain affect diplomatic relations? What pact did Britain engineer to try to secure its interests in the Middle East? Why did Nasser refuse to sign this agreement?

A

Led to a constructive period of British diplomacy.

-1955 - The Baghdad Pact was a defensive organisation promoting shared political, military and economic goals between Turkey, Pakistan, Iraq, Britain and Iran - engineered by Britain to repel any Soviet threat to the Middle East.

Nasser’s refusal:
-Nasser refused to sign this agreement, fearing that it would threaten Egyptian dominance - he didn’t want foreign influence on Egypt.
-Instead, in September 1955, Nasser turned to communist Czechoslovakia, signing an $83 million arms deal.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Why was Britain alarmed by Nasser’s actions in 1955? Who was now Prime Minister?

A

Anthony Eden, now Prime Minister since April 1955, was alarmed by Nasser’s refusal to sign the Baghdad pact, and with his closeness to ambitious communist rivals.

-Eden was determined to maintain British influence in the Middle East and saw Nasser as a threat to this influence.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

When did Nasser formally become President of Egypt? What were his aims for Egypt? What project was at the centre of his modernisation plans?

A

June 1956 - Nasser formally elected as Egypt’s 2nd president.

Aims:
-Nasser was determined to establish Egypt as a leading power in the Middle East.
-His plans for a new Egypt centred on the construction of the Aswan High Dam - an upgrade on the Aswan Dam built in 1902.
-He hoped to make this dam the core of a programme of irrigation, flood control and electrification (generating electricity).

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Who had previously promised financial aid to fund Nasser’s Aswan High Dam? Why did the US and Britain withdraw funding in 1956?

A

In 1955, Nasser had obtained promises of financial aid from both Russia and the West - he was well aware of the Cold War context and was trying to play the West.

-But, in July 1956 (one month after Nasser’s presidency) the US, Britain and the World Bank announced that they were withdrawing their funding because of Nasser’s continued association with communist powers, including China.
-E.g Nasser’s arms deal with Czechoslovakia in 1955, now heard about Nasser’s funding considerations.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

How did Nasser respond to the withdrawal of funding from his Aswan High Dam? What crisis did this trigger?

A

16 July 1956 - Nasser announced the nationalisation of the Suez Canal Company - a retaliation to the withdrawal of funding.

-Well within his rights to do so - Suez was a private company so all that was required was to pay out the shareholders at a fair price.
-A direct blow to the British government which held 44% of the company shares.
-Triggered an international crisis - the Suez crisis.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

How did Britain and Eden react to Nasser’s announcement? What might have clouded Eden’s judgement? Why were France equally outraged with Nasser?

A

Eden saw Nasser’s announcement as an indirect attack on the British position in the Middle East.

-Diplomatic attempts to convince Nasser to reverse the move were unsuccessful.
-Eden convinced himself that Nasser was a dictator who needed to be stopped in order to secure British interests in the Middle East - less about overthrowing Nasser and more about making a statement and securing Britain’s wider interests.
-Removing Nasser from power was the only way to restore their status as a major world power.
-Eden was also determined to not repeat the mistake of the appeasers of the 1930’s - i.e fears of making the errors that Chamberlain made with Hitler and the Nazis clouded his perception of Nasser.

France:
-France were equally outraged by the nationalisation.
-French President, René Coty, agreed with Eden’s assessment on securing British and French interests.
-France opposed Nasser’s assistance to the FLN (National Liberation Front in Algeria), who they were fighting a war against. Nasser, who opposed Western imperialism, provided training to the FLN soldiers.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What secret plan did Britain and France agree? Who did they agree it with? Why were Israel keen to play a role in the plan?

A

Protocol of Sèvres:
-22-24 October 1956 - a secret agreement reached between Britain, France and Israel.
-Israel would invade Egypt on 29 October.
-This would allow Britain and France, on the following day (30 October) to issue a joint ultimatum to Egypt and Israel (both sides) demanding an immediate ceasefire and withdrawal of troops from the vicinity of the Canal within 12 hours.
-Israel would intentionally refuse to give Britain and France the excuse to invade Egypt on 31 October and occupy the Canal Zone on the grounds of ‘defending it’ or ‘restoring order’.
-Britain and France would then be able to topple the Egyptian President Nasser.

Israel:
-Formed in 1948, Israel had already fought a war against Egypt over border disputes.
-They disliked Nasser’s hard-line attitude towards the state of Israel - Nasser considered Israel a bridge-head of Western imperialism and supported Palestinian raids on Israel’s western border.
-Israel also saw the invasion as a chance to gain control of the Gaza Strip and Sinai Peninsula, as well as to end the Egyptian blockade of the Straits of Tiran.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

When did Israel invade? How successful was the Israeli invasion? When did Britain and France make their move?

A

29 October 1956 - Israeli paratroops invade and attack Egypt - the Protocol of Sèvres was under way.

-The Israelis successfully pushed the Egyptians back through the Sinai Peninsula towards the Canal.
-At this point, Britain and France intervened in a supposed ‘police’ action.
-An Anglo-French force knocked out the Egyptian Air Force and landed at the north end of the Canal.
-Egyptian infrastructure was bombarded with airstrikes on 31 October - there was massive damage and many civilian casualties.

17
Q

What had Britain miscalculated? What was the international reaction to the invasion of Egypt? Which factors/developments defeated the purpose of the Anglo-French intervention in the first place?

A

International reaction:
-Britain (and France) had badly miscalculated the international reaction, especially from the USA.
-President Dwight Eisenhower was furious that Britain had gone behind America’s back (wasn’t so much a betrayal but an oversight by Eden) and embarked on military actions without informing the USA - he had informed Eden back in July not to militarily intervene.
-Eisenhower also wanted the international spotlight to be on Hungary, where the USSR was crushing the 1956 uprising happening at the exact same time (4 November - Krushchev sent 1000 tanks and Soviet troops into Budapest).
-Thus, Eisenhower immediately condemned the attack and refused to support sterling in the war-induced currency crisis.
-USSR threatened military intervention - this is what Eisenhower and the USA had feared - an act of Western imperialism driving the Middle East into the arms of the Soviets.

Anglo-French intervention unjustified:
-Nasser was well within his rights to nationalise the Suez Canal Company - Britain were therefore the aggressor - a terrible tactical mistake from Eden.
-Even the plan itself was not executed properly. Israel ended up accepting the terms of Britain and France’s ceasefire, which in theory removed the pretext for the British and French invasion. This was either down to a lack of communication, or because Israel had already gotten what they wanted - revenge.
-The Egyptians put up solid resistance, blocking the canal with sunken ships - again defeating the purpose of the invasion.
-This also highlighted how ill-prepared Britain’s armed forces were.

18
Q

How did the crisis come to an end? How were Britain pressured by the US? When did Britain and France withdraw? Who moved in to restore peace?

A

-Eisenhower and the US applied heavy political pressure.
-Britain faced sanctions in an already unstable economic climate. They were already reliant on US Support and the IMF (International Monetary Fund), whose office was in Washington, in the midst of a currency crisis.
-Eisenhower threaten to block Britain’s access to IMF funding if they did not order an immediate ceasefire.
-The prospect of sanctions caused a significant run on the pound (i.e nervousness towards the value of sterling and sterling-linked assets, including UK government bonds, caused investors and traders to sell their assets to limit losses, causing the price of the pound to decline rapidly).

-6 November - Isolated, even within the Commonwealth, Britain were forced to order a ceasefire - France followed suit. Within weeks, British and French troops began to leave.
-An Emergency UN force (mainly Danish troops) replaced the withdrawing British troops to clear the blocked canal and restore order.

19
Q

What was the short-term consequence of the humiliating Suez Crisis on Eden?

A

The whole affair was down to a serious tactical mistake and overreaction from Eden (ministerial incompetence) - he had moved too hastily, made Britain look like the aggressors, antagonised world opinion with a weak cover story which fell apart, and demonstrated how Britain’s economy was vulnerable to American pressure.
-Eden resigned in January 1957 with his reputation in tatters. Eden’s decisions have been put down by some to a serious liver condition.

-But, Eden’s harsh lesson was not necessarily all his fault. France’s government was also part of the failed operation.
-It was more a reflection of how the days of Empire were over - Britain’s crises were now international, not just imperial.

20
Q

What were the long-term consequences of the Suez Crisis on Britain and her Empire? Was it a watershed moment for Britain? How were France impacted?

A

-A fatal moment in terms of British imperial policy - not the end of Britain’s belief in its ‘world power’ status, but certainly a growing realisation that the days of Empire were numbered - a symptom and marker of how far they had fallen.
-Britain forced to confront its loss of status and accept the ‘wind of change’.
-Britain could no longer act unilaterally without unsettling the new world order (the USA) - the Suez invasion was a desperate attempt by Britain to flex their muscles in a world where they weren’t top dog any more (British toothlessness exposed) - the illusion of an imperial revival was finally dispelled.
-Also dispelled the notion that Britain could ‘manage’ and control its retreat from Empire.
-Never again would Britain seek to act alone without approval of close consultation with the USA - Britain learned how important the ‘special relationship’ with the US now was - showed their reliance on America, but also how they turned this into an advantage.
-A global humiliation for Britain - a climb-down that signalled national decline.
-Britain had lost an Empire, but not yet found a role.
-But, its significance should not be exaggerated. Suez did not immediately trigger the wave of decolonisation in the 1960’s, nor did it cause a sudden and drastic decline in Britain’s global influence - this had started long before and would likely have unfolded without the spark of Suez. Suez became an excuse or scapegoat for Britain’s loss of power and economic weakness - so not a direct watershed moment, but certainly a clear turning point from an optics point of view.
-The imperial legions did not march home - colonial campaigns and projects continued after 1956.
-The Commonwealth remained a global body with Britain at its head.

Empire:
-Britain were still committed to defending its remaining imperial interests.
-However, the crisis suggested to nationalist movements seeking to achieve independence to push harder - the knowledge that the British could be forced to surrender made independence movements increasingly difficult to contain.
-The whole credibility of holding into formal colonies in Africa and elsewhere was called into question - encouraged British politicians to accept that it is best to give in to nationalist demands for independence - sooner rather than later to maximise any kind of retention of British influence.

France:
-France sought closer ties elsewhere.

21
Q

How did Britain’s position in the Middle East decline further in the years after 1956? What had they held onto?

A

1956-67 - loss of British influence in the Middle East post-Suez Crisis:
-Iraq left the Baghdad Pact in 1959 after the monarchy had been overthrown in 1958 - a loss of influence over its former colony.
-Cyprus gained independence in 1960 after years of terrorism and violence between rival Turkish and Greek communities - although Britain kept some bases (see ahead for Cyprus).
-Mid-1960’s - Britain only controlled air bases in Libya and retained a protectorate over a few sheikhdoms in the Persian Gulf, Aden and the South Arabian Federation.
-1967 - Britain evacuated their Aden base after increased resistance by Egyptian-encouraged local nationalists.

22
Q

What was the Cyprus Emergency 1955-59? What was the background to it? When did they gain independence? What was its significance?

A

Cyprus Emergency (1955-1959) - an insurgent campaign by the right-wing Greek Cypriot militant group, the National Organisation of Cypriot Fighters (EOKA), to remove the British from the Cyprus and to unify Cyprus and Greece.
-Colonel Grivas - leader of EOKA.
-Black October 1958 - 45 people killed.

Background:
-Cyprus had formerly been a territory of the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire from the late 16th century.
-In 1915, Cyprus was formally annexed into the British Empire after WW1 - it had previously been a British protectorate from 1878 (albeit under partial Ottoman control).
-1910’s-50’s - Greek Cypriots became increasingly dissatisfied with British rule and supportive of Enosis, the concept of political unification between Cyprus and Greece.

Outcome:
-1960 – Cyprus became independent within the Commonwealth. Britain retained control of two bases.

Significance:
-Along with Malaya, Kenya and India, decolonisation in Cyprus is an example of a bloody campaign fought by the British to stem the rising tide of nationalism.
-Since independence, trouble between Greek and Turkish Cypriots remains. The
country has been divided since 1974 when Turkey invaded the north in response to a military coup on the island which was backed by the Greek government.