Skip to content

Results:

21 - 30 of 78

Documents

December 3, 1956

Middle East (Situation): Debated in the Commons Chamber, Monday, 3 December 1956

In July 1956, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser (1918-1970) nationalized the Suez Canal Company, surprising the world. The government of France, in whose capital of Paris the company was headquartered, and the British government, the company’s plurality shareholder, sought to reverse nationalization in court, but failed—even though they clad their case in the language not of imperial self-interest but, rather, of international public interest. The time in which such language was somewhat acceptable, even at home, was passing, and the Suez Crisis played a big part in this final act.

At the same time, the two governments early on after the canal nationalization decided to remove Nasser by force, for re-compensation was not their central concern. France believed Nasser was enabling the FLN, which in 1954 had started Algeria’s War for Independence, and Britain wanted some say in the canal, which had for decades been its worldwide empire’s “swing-door,” as a member of parliament, Anthony Eden (1897-1977), called it in 1929. In August 1956 France began discussing a joint operation with Israel, which wanted Nasser gone, too, and the Red Sea opened for Israel-bound ships. In early October the two were joined by Britain. On the 29th, Israel invaded the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula. On the 30th, France and Britain gave Israel and Egypt a 12-hour ultimatum to cease hostilities, or they would intervene—and Anglo-French forces bombed Egyptian forces from the 31st and on November 5-6 occupied the canal’s northern tip. Although a power play, “Operation Musketeer,” like the court case, could not be an open imperial move anymore, then, and did not present itself to the world as such. No matter: especially in colonies and postcolonial countries, people were outraged.

More problematically for France and Britain, Washington was incredulous. This Middle Eastern affair triggered the worst crisis of the 1950s between America’s rising international empire and Europe’s descending empires, and indeed clarified and accelerated that descent. President Dwight Eisenhower (1890-1969) fumed that Prime Ministers Anthony Eden and Guy Mollet (1905-1977) had disregarded his administration’s opposition to military action. Worse, they had deceived him about their intentions. And worst, their attack on Egypt undermined the supreme US tenet: Soviet containment. The Americans were by association tainted by their NATO allies’ imperialist move while the Soviets looked good—on November 5 they offered Egypt troops and threatened to nuke London, Paris, and Tel Aviv—and that although they had just repressed an uprising in Hungary.

On the very day of the ultimatum, October 30, Eisenhower washed his hands of that move on live US television, and the US mission at the UN organized a cease-fire resolution vote in the Security Council. France and Britain vetoed it. Although sharing its European allies’ emotions about Nasser, the US administration withheld critical oil and monetary supplies from them to bring them to heel and withdraw from Egypt—after which, it promised, they would be warmly welcomed back. It ceased most bilateral communications and froze almost all everyday social interactions with its two allies, even cancelling a scheduled visit by Eden. And it badgered its allies at the UN, supporting an Afro-Asian resolution that on November 24 called Israel, Britain, and France to withdraw forthwith. On December 3, the British Foreign Secretary Selwyn Lloyd took the floor in the House of Commons.

September 15, 1985

Cable No. 769, Ambassador Kato to the Foreign Minister, 'Ambassador Nakayama's Visit to Syria'

A summary of the meeting between Foreign Minister Shara of Syria and Special Envoy Nakayama about the relationship between Japan and Syria and the American hostages in Lebanon. The two discuss how the release of the Lebanese prisoners in Israel influences the situation of the American hostages.

June 29, 2020

Interview and Discussion with Sir Malcolm Rifkind

Discussion with Sir Malcolm Rifkind, former Defense Secretary and Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom, about the 1990s and the new relationship that formed after the Cold War.

December 30, 1955

Gazette of the State Council of the People's Republic of China, 1955, No. 23 (Overall Issue No. 26)

This issue begins with a statement about the American violation of the Sino-U.S. ambassadorial agreement to repatriate citizens held in either country. It also discusses a Sino-Soviet agreement to combat crop diseases and to engage in pest control. Other sections cover light industries, art and cultural work in factories and mines, and protections for young people.

June 30, 1944

Telegram from Harriman to Hull

Harriman gives Hull a summary of 7 topics discussed in the Johnston, Stalin, Harriman meeting.

June 26, 1944

Stalin, Harriman and Johnston Discuss Industry and Soviet-American Relations

Ambassador Harriman, Eric Johnston, and Marshal Stalin have a conversation about industry and U.S.- Soviet relations.

December 6, 1978

Matters Arising from the South African-American Talks held in Washington on 20, 21 and 22 November 1978 in connection with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act, 1978 (NNPA)

November 30, 1978

Report on South African-American Talks held in Washington on 20, 21, and 22 November 1978 in connection with the "Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act, 1978" (NNPA)

2019

Elie Geisler, 'The Israeli Nuclear Drama of May 1967: A Personal Testimony'

Elie Geisler received training as a radiation-safety officer while serving as a solider at Dimona from 1964 to 1966. As the crisis escalated in late May 1967, Geisler was summoned to meet the head of the Minhal Madaii—the secret scientific administration in charge of the nuclear project—who gave him a special assignment: guarding a radioactive “package” to be placed under heavy security. The following testimony was relayed to Avner Cohen through several interviews and follow-up conversations and email exchanges.

April 12, 2017

Oral History Interview with Nabil Fahmy

The interview with Nabil Fahmy provides an in-depth view of Egypt’s position and strategies during the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference. Fahmy emphasizes Egypt's focus on addressing regional asymmetries, particularly Israel's nuclear ambiguity, while advocating for global disarmament and non-proliferation. He reflects on Egypt's frustrations with unfulfilled promises from the U.S. and Israel, including failed bilateral and multilateral talks like ACRS, which underpinned Egypt’s skepticism toward the indefinite extension of the NPT. Despite knowing that indefinite extension was inevitable, Egypt used the Middle East resolution as leverage, securing its inclusion as part of the final package. Fahmy underscores Egypt's practical yet principled stance, acknowledging the challenges of disarmament and the limits of what could realistically be achieved given the prevailing geopolitical dynamics.

This document summary was generated by an artificial intelligence language model and was reviewed by a Wilson Center staff member.

Pagination