The Suez Canal

Daisy Resendiz
ES 410

The History of the Suez Canal

The history the colonization of Egypt helps to understand the Suez Canal. After the fall of the Napoleonic Empire, they moved into Egypt and helped them establish a “military army”, and then British came. The British were motivated by attaining a route to India. Because they held control over the waters, they also held in Egypt and Sudan. Because the British were reluctant to lose the control they had over the Suez Canal, then let the Egypt have a monarchy. Also, it is important to look at the predicament that Egypt was in and what eventually led to their decisions. The Suez canal was important to the economy to both the British and Egypt and its interesting to see how it played out. A lot of waiting and see what the other countries move would be. I also want to see how the Suez Canal today is affected, if at all, by the protests.

El-Sayed, Osman, Juan Lucena, and Gary Downey. "Engineering and Engineering
Education in Egypt." IEEE Technology and Society Magazine (2006): 18-25

This article talks about the different colonial powers. The article talks about the French and the British and the different interests that they had in the country. The French helped them establish an engineering education and even, started the planning the Suez the canal. The British came in and the engineering teaching soon shifted to more hands on rather than theoretical. It also explains why the British did not want to let go their control over the Egypt. And also explain how they were able to still keep their foot in the door, so to speak. It also explains how today the United State are providing aid and how engineering is also affected by the United States.

Lucena, Juan, Gary Downey, and Hussein Amery. "From Region to Countries: Engineering Education in Bahrain, Egypt , and Turkey." IEEE Technology and Society Magazine (2006): 4-11

This article helped me realize that the engineering methods of the Middle East are not the same. The idea that the Middle East has the same type of engineering because they hold some of the same culture and language was challenged. The article demonstrated that there are differences and purposes. This was one of the first articles that I found and helped me understand the differences and understand Egypt and get a better idea.

Dooley, Howard J. "Great Britian's 'Last Battle' in the Middle East: Notes on Cabinet Planning during the Suez Crises of 1956." The International History Review 11.3 (1989): 486-517.

This article talks about the British plans to ‘battle’ over the Suez Canal. Nasser had announced Egypt would build its own dam and that brought the British to a frenzy. The British has planned to attack and battle to gain control over the Suez Canal. However, there were there factors that had to be looked at. They had the support if Israel and wanted the support of the United Stars. The British reasoning for battle was that the Suez Canal was actually not apart of Egypt but actually an international piece that was an “asset of the highest importance” and arguing that Nasser had acted illegally. However D-Day was postponed so many times because of second – guessing and other factors, such as the support from other powers, were also put into perspective that the issues eventually came into the hands of the United States.

Pryce-Jones, David. “Remember Suez: Nasser and the Canal; Saddam and today.” National Review 10 Mar. 2003. Expanded Academic ASAP. Web. 1 Feb. 2011
This article was an interesting read. It compares the situation to Saddam and oil to the situation of the Suez canal and Nasser. The article implies that action should be take in the case of Saddam unlike with Nasser. Since the British did use force they later regretted not doing anything “forceful” against Nasser. This contributed to my reading in a different light,. I do not necessarily agree with it, but it has made me understand the view point of the British during the Suez Canal crises.
Shupe, Micheal C., William M. Wright, Keith W. Hipel, and Niall M. Fraser. "Nationalization of the Suez Canal: A Hypergame Analysis." The Journal of Conflict Resolution 24.4 (1980): 477-93.

This article really puts the perspective that Nasser was in. It demonstrates why taking over the Canal by surprise was the best decisions. This article outlines the benefits that Egypt would receive from taking over the canal. Ando also reveals the past history of the Canal that has been a sort of struggle to gain profit from the canal. This article , I felt, did a good job of stating the facts even thought there are some biases. The writer also goes back and analyzes the countries as “players”, who was on what “teams” and what they benefited from the Suez Canal.