| Summary |
The purpose of this study is to examine British press opinion of United States policy in the Middle East before, during, and after the Suez Canal crisis of 1956 . More specifically, it is to investigate whether the Suez crisis may have had an overall redeeming- effect on British press attitudes towards the United States position in Middle-Eastern affairs. In addition, this study will attempt to determine on what occasion during the crisis the British press was most favorable towards United States policy, and on what occasion the press was most opposed to the conduct of United States policy in the Middle-Eastern crisis. The nationalization of the Suez Canal by President Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt, the resultant diplomatic wrangles between Britain and the United States, and Britain's participation in the invasion of the Canal Zone severely strained Anglo-American relations. The British press reacted strongly to these events, and, in turn, vi the press' perceptions of United States Middle-Eastern policy were affected deeply. In reviewing the Suez crisis, one might anticipate that such events had a detrimental effect on the press' attitude towards United States policy. However, evidence gathered in a close examination of British newspapers supports the argument that ultimately these events had just the opposite effect. This evidence suggests that the Suez crisis significantly improved the British press' opinion of United States Middle-Eastern policy. Following the crisis, the press recognized and welcomed a new-found direction and commitment by the United States to Middle-Eastern affairs. The crisis had displayed vividly for the British press Britain's diminished role as a world power and had reconciled much of the press to the fact that only American power could hope to deal effectively with the fervent Arab nationalism and Soviet expansionism that threatened the volatile Middle East. |
