An example of using financial weapons to achieve geopolitical goals is the Suez Canal crisis in 1956, and it was the United States that used this weapon. Before the appearance of supertankers, 70% of oil in western Europe was transported through the Suez Canal (modern supertankers are too big to pass). Relying on the canal, the cost of transporting tin and rubber from British colony Malaysia to Europe will be greatly reduced. In a broader sense, it will also reduce the cost of goods transportation between Asia and Europe. Therefore, Britain has 80,000 troops in Suez and shares the financial power of SuezCanalCompany with France.
Like other third world countries, Egypt was experiencing a wave of nationalism at that time, seeking to recover the lease right of Suez Canal from the Anglo-French joint venture of 1952. 1952 On July 22nd, a military coup overthrew the Egyptian monarchy and General gamal abdel nasser came to power. After Nasser came to power, the relationship between Egypt and Britain and even the whole West became increasingly tense. 1954, Nasser reached an agreement with Britain, and Britain agreed to evacuate its troops stationed in the Suez Canal. Later, Nasser raised the stakes and established diplomatic relations with People's Republic of China (PRC) in 1956.
As an ally of China and Taiwan Province Province, the United States, which has always been hostile to Chinese mainland, quickly responded by stopping its financial support for the Aswan Dam. Britain participated in the design of Aswan dam earlier, and British hydrologists also participated in the early work of the dam, but it was the United States that provided financial support, which also reflected the predicament that Britain was in at that time. This sudden decision of Eisenhower Administration highlights the influence of john foster dulles, a statesman of the Cold War. At that time, Eisenhower, who had just finished intestinal surgery, was recovering, while foreign affairs were entrusted to Dulles, who has always been known for his toughness.
Dulles thought Nasser would give up, but the Egyptian president was unwilling to give in. Aswan Dam is the pyramid in Nasser's mind, and he wants to make it a symbol of modern Egypt. Therefore, he reiterated that he would take back the concession of Suez Canal from Britain and France and nationalize it. In this regard, 70,000 French shareholders of Suez Canal Company were furious. What annoys the French government even more is Nasser's support for Algerian rebels, which further worsens France's political and military problems in North Africa.
To this end, France and Israel reached a secret agreement. For a long time, Israel has always opposed Nasser's obstruction of Israeli merchant ships passing through the Suez Canal. Soon, they got an urgent message that Egypt had just bought a batch of MIG fighters from the Soviet Union. These fighters were bought through Czechoslovakia, but it doesn't matter. More seriously, pilots from the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia have arrived in Egypt with these fighters.
After a series of secret consultations with France, Britain agreed to join the alliance. 1956, 10 year129 October, Israel pre-emptively invaded Sinai Peninsula. Britain and France sent troops to seize control of the canal, ostensibly to prevent it from being destroyed by Israeli and Egyptian troops. British and French fighter planes bombed the Egyptian airport. ("MiG" fighters are naturally included. Not to be outdone, Nasser sank all 47 ships passing through the canal, thus closing the canal. Although goods and oil from Asia and the Middle East can still reach Europe around the Horn of Africa, the extra cost is extremely high and the shipping time is greatly extended. Nasser's behavior caused a series of serious consequences, one of which was terrible. There are three times as many ships refueling in Cape Town.
Although French paratroopers and British commandos have the ability to seize control of the canal at low cost, the losses have been caused. The special relationship between Britain and the United States has also been damaged. Despite being a diplomat, Anthony Eden, the conservative prime minister, did not ask Eisenhower's advice before launching military action. He just took it for granted that the President of the United States would support his actions against the Egyptian government, because Egypt had previously recognized the people of China and the government of China.
One possible explanation for not consulting the United States is that Aidan was fed up with Nasser. Aidan has always been known for his conceit. He was emotional and angry at that time. As early as 1938, he angrily resigned as foreign minister because he was dissatisfied with Premier neville chamberlain's behind-the-scenes contact with Italian dictator Mussolini. Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal, which eventually led to the bankruptcy of British reconciliation policy (Aidan was the main participant in this policy). 195 1~ 1955, when he became foreign minister for the third time (the second time was during World War II), Aidan personally negotiated with Egypt about the withdrawal of British troops from Suez.
By this time, Nasser had become a thorn in Aidan's side, and he was determined to overthrow the Egyptian leader. Compromise is not feasible Regarding the memorandum submitted by Anthony Nadine, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, his reaction was: "What nonsense is there in your memorandum ... isolating Nasser and this' neutral' Nasser? What nonsense is this? I'm going to knock him down, you understand? I want to get rid of him ... I don't care if Egypt will be chaotic. " Aidan was angry because the memorandum suggested diplomatic means to solve the problem with Egypt.
Perhaps the misunderstanding has something to do with Aidan never establishing a good relationship with Winslow aldridge, the American ambassador to Britain. It is worth mentioning that Winslow aldridge, the son of Nelson aldridge, played an important role in establishing the Federal Reserve and promoting the internationalization of the US dollar. Usually, American ambassadors should have an information channel to convey the views of the President of the United States and the State Council. But Aidan's relationship with aldridge is rather cold, and the latter seems to care more about British society than its foreign policy.
The last factor is Aidan's trust in Chancellor Harold Macmillan. Macmillan blindly believes that Britain can rely on its special relationship with the United States. Personally, I think Macmillan is also related to the United States. Her mother was born in Indiana. In addition, he also has a special relationship with the incumbent president of the United States. At that time, Eisenhower was the supreme commander of the allied forces in the North African theater, and Macmillan was responsible for the contact with British Prime Minister Churchill during wartime. On the eve of the Suez Canal War, Macmillan sneaked into the White House and met with Eisenhower when he went to Washington to attend the annual meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. It is not known whether the two sides talked about the Suez Canal during this meeting, but his message to the Prime Minister was very clear. "Ike (Eisenhower) has made up his mind," he wrote, "to let Nasser step down anyway." But this is just wishful thinking.
After the Soviet Union sent troops to suppress the Hungarian revolution, the last thing Eisenhower and the State Council wanted to do was to associate with the occupying power. Dulles doesn't like anything related to colonialism, because he thinks it will weaken America's position in the "Cold War". In addition, based on budget considerations, George Humphrey, Eisenhower's close friend and US Treasury Secretary, also disapproved of US support.
The British also misunderstood American electoral politics. The fact that Eisenhower sought re-election in June1956165438+10 gave them confidence and made them think that he would stand with Britain and Israel and oppose Egypt. In fact, American voters do not want the United States to get involved in a military operation again. For Eisenhower, whose campaign slogan is to defend peace, opposing the Suez Canal War will win him political points. To Britain's surprise, the United States demanded an immediate cessation of military operations.
This is the whole geopolitical background, and the financial background is the fragility of the pound. Britain's foreign creditors are still seeking to get rid of their financial claims during World War II, and Britain's increasingly relaxed capital controls provide them with an opportunity to do so. At the same time, due to high wages, low productivity and antagonistic labor relations, it is difficult for Britain to offset its weak finances by developing a strong export economy. Before the Suez Canal War, Britain's reserves had even dropped to $2 billion, which was regarded as the minimum security level. Against this background, it is dangerous to participate in an expensive and uncertain military operation. The closure of the Suez Canal will increase transportation costs and the price of imported oil. Therefore, the Suez Canal adventure has further deepened the market's confidence in whether Britain can maintain the 1 2 ratio. Query on the exchange rate of 8 pounds against the US dollar.
This decline in the exchange rate may have a far-reaching impact. Commonwealth countries and Nordic countries accustomed to pegging their currencies to the pound will have to decide whether to continue this habit. They may choose to peg to the dollar because the United States is a stronger economy and a bigger trading country. If so, it will have disastrous consequences for the cohesion of the pound area and the banking business of the member countries of the pound area in London.
Before the Suez Canal operation, the Aiden government knew to maintain 1 2. The exchange rate between the pound and the dollar of $80 needs the help of the International Monetary Fund. That's why Aidan and Macmillan believe that they will get unconditional support from the United States and are full of confidence. And that's why they made a serious misjudgment. The State Council warned that the United States can provide support, but only if the British government promises to withdraw its troops from Egypt. 165438+ 10. On 2 October, the United States proposed a ceasefire resolution at the United Nations General Assembly. The openness of the contradiction between the United States and Britain led to a run on the pound. Later, the United States made it clear that it not only demanded a ceasefire, but also demanded an actual withdrawal. This statement further worsened the situation facing the pound.
At this time, Macmillan, the most staunch supporter of military action against Nasser in the US government cabinet, suddenly changed his position. Because of this, he was accused by the opposition party of duplicity and was nicknamed "Macmillan in first out". But as the government's finance minister, he actually has no other choice. His real failure lies in his overconfidence that America will help Britain.
In the next two weeks, the British government has been prevaricating, saying that it accepts the ceasefire agreement, but only agrees to withdraw one battalion. Capital controls slowed down the outflow of reserves, but attracted many speculators who bet on the devaluation of the pound. Considering that the pound may depreciate, foreign buyers who buy British goods demand deferred payment, while sellers who sell goods to Britain demand early payment.
Compromise is painful. SuezGroup, a backbencher of the Conservative Party, is unwilling to admit that Britain has lost its position as the first geopolitical power and strongly opposes the total withdrawal. The Aiden government promised to seek financial support to ensure that the cabinet reached an agreement on withdrawing troops. However, the Eisenhower administration still asked the British government to give a specific withdrawal date. The British are worried that setting a specific date may cause confusion, which will lead to the failure of troops to evacuate normally and endanger the security of the garrison. Overwhelmed and in poor health, Aidan flew to golden eye for recuperation, which is also the resort of novelist Ian Fleming in Jamaica. But this has not aroused people's confidence in the government.
Everyone knows that the crisis will enter the most severe moment on February 4, 65438, because on this day, Macmillan will publish the monthly report of the British Reserve. It will show that Britain's gold and dollar reserves have fallen below $2 billion, which will undoubtedly trigger a new round of pound run. Under the pressure of this time, the Aiden government reiterated its commitment to withdraw troops, but still tried to avoid giving an exact date. It assured Washington in vague language that "(we) have decided to leave on time, and we are ready to leave on time."
But all the cards are in the hands of Americans, and they can force Britain to yield without doing anything. On February 2, 65438, two days before the Chancellor of the Exchequer issued his report, the British Cabinet agreed to take February 22, 65438 as the deadline for withdrawing troops. On February 3, 65438, US Treasury Secretary Humphrey, who had just returned from vacation, agreed to support Britain's withdrawal from the International Monetary Fund.
Based on this, when Macmillan made a report on February 4, 65438, it could be said that the reserve of the Bank of England had fallen below $2 billion, but at the same time it could be claimed that the United States supported Britain to recover all the credit lines of $654,380.3 billion from the International Monetary Fund. 65438+February 10, with the support of the United States, the British loan application was approved; Of the 65,438+06 members of the Executive Committee of the International Monetary Fund, only the member representing Egypt abstained. This action marks the end of the British financial crisis. At the same time, it marks the end of an era: the era when Britain, once an economic power, pursued an independent foreign policy, because now it has to rely on a stronger partner, that is, the United States.