Chapter 8 Section 3 Suez Canal Incident and Beyond

Conservative thinking on policy issues has also become more assertive and more radical.A comparison of the two most influential books published by the Conservative Party in recent years, One Nation (October 1950) and Change is Our Ally (May 1954), demonstrates this.These two works were written by a group of talented young MPs.They included Enoch Powell, Angus Maude, Robert Carr and Ted Heath, Ian McLeod (the latter two only participated in the writing work of "One Nation").As we all know, One Nation is about social policy, and social policy is a difficult subject, especially at a time when the Conservative government has had to cut public spending.But the document's relatively moderate tone suggests a conservative approach and thinking by the Conservative Party.The document stresses (certainly convincingly) that the Conservatives will remain committed to a welfare "safety net" that guarantees that everyone cannot live below a certain standard, and that the Conservatives will also adhere to Anthony Eden's poverty relief Rather than the idea of ​​robbing the rich.

Change is Our Ally is an even more inspiring document. In the late 1980s, I revisited this document and found that after I became the leader of the party, our analysis of many things was the same as that in the book.The book begins by exploring the reasons for the expansion of collectivism in the interwar British economy, before boldly refuting the argument that the economy should continue to be planned in peacetime as it was in World War II.The book even points out a fact that everyone knew was true but was largely unspoken for years after the war, that no matter how necessary wartime planning was when the country was facing emergencies, it was still Inefficient, wasteful, bureaucratic.A retrospective comparison of the scenario proposed by Lord Beveridge in his unofficial study, Full Employment in a Free Society (published 1944) with the situation a decade later reveals more about the economic undermining. The folly and absurdity of economic planning with detailed forecasts and quantitative indicators.What is admirable is that all the statements in the report are reasonable. What the authors of Change Is Our Ally and the following year's Conservative election manifesto did not do—not that it occurred to me at the time that they should—suggest a radical elimination of collectivism in industry, or a radical overhaul of the welfare state. Fundamental reform. Since the mid-1950s, the Conservative Party has at least begun to consider a continuum analysis of the free market.Once the Conservative Party has a chance to govern, it will probably lead naturally to free market policies.But the future development of the situation is not the case.

In April 1955, Churchill resigned as prime minister and was replaced by Anthony Eden.A quick turn of events ensued, with a new general election, a new Conservative government, a government that failed miserably at the Suez Canal, and Harold McMee, the man of change, in 10 Downing Street . During the general election campaign in May 1955, I went to some constituencies to speak, which was basically dull for me.Once you are a candidate, nothing else appeals to you.In addition, everyone has a clearer view of the results of this general election.As expected, the Conservative Party won the general election with a margin of 58 seats over its opponent.But the political honeymoon period of the Eden government was short-lived.Butler's reputation was badly damaged by a tighter budget enacted in October after the Eden government felt Rab Butler's pre-election budget was too loose shortly after it came to power - six months later , Harold Macmillan replaced Butler as Chancellor of the Exchequer - also with serious damage to the government's reputation.But it will be foreign affairs that will really bring Aiden down.

The background to the Suez crisis of July-November 1956 has been an ongoing topic of discussion.At that time, everyone felt, at least among the Conservatives, that Britain, as a powerful country, should not be at the mercy of Nasser's Egypt, and should teach Egypt a lesson and must not encourage autocrats.At the time, many details of how Britain, France and Israel worked together were unknown to the public.So it was almost incomprehensible to us that Anthony Nardin and later my old friend Edward Boyle resigned in protest of government interference in the canal.While I still can't say yes even after all these years, it now feels easier to understand their actions.

In the Suez Canal incident, it is by no means easy to find a balance between interests and principles.I have no doubt in the slightest that Britain had the right to respond to Nasser's illegal seizure of international waterways - as long as swift and decisive action was taken.But since the summer, dictators smarter than we have put us in a position where our legal principles must be sacrificed to protect our interests.Britain, France and Israel have been criticized for cooperating with each other for a number of reasons, one of which is the belief that if things came to light - which it certainly would, and it did - our reputation would suffer.Meanwhile, Suez may be the last chance for European powers to stand up to and bring down a Third World dictator.The dictator is not interested in complying with international agreements unless they benefit him.Nasser's victories include: the overthrow of the pro-Western regime in Iraq; Egypt's occupation of Yemen; Israel's encirclement by the Arab world, which led to the June 5th War.By the time I left office, we were still getting billed for this war.

As I learn more about the Suez Canal incident, I have drawn four lessons from this sad incident.First, we should not engage in military action unless we are determined and capable of winning.Second, we can no longer stand on the opposite side of the United States in major international affairs affecting British interests.Third, we should ensure that our actions comply with international law.In the end, the indecisive loses. At the time, I strongly supported the British government's actions on the Suez Canal.Labor initially supported the government and later opposed the government's military action.I am disgusted with this kind of opportunistic behavior by the Labor Party (I think so).Dennis and I, like many readers, have canceled the Observer and vowed never to read it again because of its opposition to the government's approach to the Suez Canal) That's not to say I don't have anything to say about the government's actions, even if that At that time I was not as clear about the details of international law as I was later, and the evening paper I rushed down File Lane to buy in the heavy rain carried the headline: "Ultimatum!" Britain and France demanded that Egypt and Israel withdraw their troops from the canal, making Britain, Israel The French army separated the Egyptian and Israeli troops and protected the waterway.I didn't quite understand how the British could issue an ultimatum to the Egyptians to withdraw from their territory.However, I still support Aiden without hesitation.

Politically speaking, the failed operation in Suez was a serious setback.Although the full extent of events did not become clear until many years later, what was immediately seen was the incompetence of the government, and its incompetence was exposed in a most humiliating manner.For a Conservative government, especially one led by a man with a reputation for conducting foreign affairs, the consequences of the incident were dire.Conservative supporters have a sense of gloom bordering on despair.Dennis, as a former officer of the Royal Artillery, was furious that our troops had been fooled by having to stop operations near the end, so his reaction was all the more violent.He said to me, "You should never declare a ceasefire when your troops are out on patrol." I will remember this: In times of war, politicians must make decisions with due regard to the impact of their decisions on fighting on the ground. What does the force mean.

We also castigate America for its performance, some conservatives have never forgiven Americans.By the time I was Prime Minister, there was still anti-American sentiment in some of the more right-wing circles, and it was partly related to this.I also felt that our traditional allies did let us down - although I certainly didn't realize at the time that the British and French decisions to take military action ahead of the US presidential election also disappointed Eisenhower, since peace was his main campaign slogan.But in any case, I also feel that the foundations of our "special relationship" with our kin across the Atlantic are so strong that not even a crisis like the Suez incident will destroy it.Some people think that the Suez Canal incident shows that Americans strongly oppose Britain's role as a great power. The United States has become a superpower and we should no longer trust them. Further European integration is the only answer.But I have always insisted that there is another conclusion, and it is the exact opposite conclusion.That is, British foreign policy cannot last without the support of the United States.In fact, looking back now, the Suez Canal incident also played an unexpected role.It promotes the United States to eventually replace the United Kingdom as the defender of the international economic system of Western interests and freedom, and this transfer of power is carried out in a peaceful manner and is necessary.

Although I paid close attention to the Suez incident, I was not indifferent to the vicious and barbaric actions of the Soviet Union in suppressing the Hungarian Revolution in November 1956.The Soviet leader at the time, Nikita Khrushchev, had visited Britain with his amiable wife only a few months earlier.At that time, there was another thing that was incredible to me.After Stalin's death, the Soviet Union had worked hard to improve its image, and its brutal, savage insult to Hungary undid those efforts.Years later, I spoke to Bob Conquest about my reaction.When I later became Leader of the Opposition, Bob Conquest gave me a lot of good advice.He wrote "The Great Terror" in the late 1960s for the first time to fully expose the situation of Stalin killing a large number of innocent people.The typical mistake we made when dealing with the Soviets, he said, was that we thought they would act like the Westerners would in their situation.What affects them is a completely different and far more brutal political culture.It is with this in mind that after Iraq invaded Iran in September 1980, I asked the intelligence community to look back at events like Hungary.We fail to predict events because we fail to grasp the psychology of the aggressors and therefore fail to conclude that they will act.

Of course, there is little we can do about the Hungarian tragedy—and NATO, with or without Suez, would not risk a major war for Hungary.But many Hungarians did not think so, which made them all the more angry at our betrayal.I remember a Sunday newspaper interviewing a Hungarian woman hiding in a basement."The West will not come to our aid. Freedom is selfish," she said. It hurts my heart to hear such accusations. After Britain lost face over the Suez Canal incident, it became clear that Anthony Eden was no longer prime minister.He fell ill during the crisis and resigned in January 1957.Many in my circle were speculating about who would succeed the prime minister - because at that time the Conservative leader was "made up", not elected.My colleagues in the law firm believe that the Queen will never summon Rab Butler because he is so leaning to the left.By contrast, Chancellor Harold Macmillan is seen as the right-wing candidate.It all goes to show how little I know about the past and present beliefs of these two men—especially of the very bright, elusive, soon-to-be Prime Minister.

Harold Macmillan had all the strengths and weaknesses of any seasoned statesman.He develops a languid and almost stale style.It's not enough—nor is it to cover up the shrewdness behind him one by one.He is a man who wears multiple masks.You couldn't tell, for example, that he was a very devout politician despite his apparent indifference. Harold Macmillan's greatest and most far-reaching achievement was mending relations with the United States.This is the basic condition for Britain to restore its credibility and status.Unfortunately, he failed to mend the damage done to the morale of British politics by the Suez incident - a veritable "Suez syndrome".They went from believing that Britain could do anything to an almost neurotic belief that nothing could be done.It's always a comical exaggeration.At that time, we were still a middle power after the United States and the Soviet Union, an important country in NATO, a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, and the center of the great Commonwealth of Nations. Macmillan's influence on domestic affairs was twofold.Under his leadership, the government abolished rent controls on private housing in 1957, which greatly reduced the degree of rent control that had existed in one form or another since 1915.This is a necessary but by no means welcome move.But in general, the Conservative Party under the leadership of Macmillan gradually moved towards the direction of state intervention, and this trend became more obvious after 1959. Even then some developments disturbed me.When Peter Thornycroft, Enoch, Powell, Nigel Birch - Macmillan's entire financial team - resigned because of a £50 million increase in public spending in January 1958, Macmillan Jokingly called it "little local difficulty".I have no right to comment on the merits of the dispute itself, but I don't think saving public funds is an unseemly reason to resign.Once the first few steps have been taken on the road away from fiscal ethics, it becomes much easier to eventually abandon fiscal ethics.Abandoning fiscal ethics has its own negative consequences.This is what happened in later years. But Macmillan was indeed an extremely shrewd and capable statesman.As early as the summer of 1957, he had realized that the living standards of ordinary people had been improving rapidly and that this was the best hope for political success.That's when he asserted that "life has never been better for most of us". Labor and its critics attacked this, saying it showed Macmillan was content with the status quo and materialistic.But it's actually true and politically persuasive.There is a sense that things have never been better, and that this is due to private enterprise rather than planning.The last thing this country wants to do is to go back to the days of austerity and austerity in the form of coarse shirts.Therefore, the attack on "Super Mike" is not good for oneself. Even so, the political recovery of the Conservatives will not be immediate.At the party's annual conference in October 1957 - one of the few I did not attend - the polls showed Labor at 52 per cent, compared with 33 per cent for the Conservatives.To make matters worse, the Liberal victory in the Torrington by-election in March 1958 dealt us a severe blow. It wasn't until the late summer of that year that the Conservatives caught up with Labor in the polls. In the 1959 general election, both major political parties were unabashedly competing to echo the national desire for material improvement.The Conservative Party manifesto bluntly states, "The Conservatives make your life better. Don't let Labour ruin it." For his part, Days after the campaign began, he announced that while Labor planned to spend more, it would not raise income taxes—a promise that was hardly believable even in the rosy political climate of the time.