Take that, Imperialism!
Today is the 50th anniversary of Nasser's nationalization of the Suez Canal. No exposition for the moment, but I did want to make sure to post some of the BBC's audio coverage of the event, which is both current and archival, and all absolutely amazing. I will say that I think it is impossible to underestimate the importance of this event for 20th (and 21st) century history.
The Day Nasser Nationalized the Canal
audio:
Nasser's speech of August 56 against colonialism and outisde administration of the canal
Archival and other audio on the nationalization and the resultant war of (disgusting) retribution waged by "allied" powers against Egypt
The Day Nasser Nationalized the Canal
audio:
Nasser's speech of August 56 against colonialism and outisde administration of the canal
Archival and other audio on the nationalization and the resultant war of (disgusting) retribution waged by "allied" powers against Egypt
posted by shrf at 2:28 AM
1 Comments:
For a *very* different view, see this summation of the event in this week's Weekly Standard:
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/484pbqjx.asp?pg=2
The article, written by one Arthur Herman, author of books on Joseph McCarthy, the Scottish, and the British Navy, is interesting for several reasons. The first is Herman's repeated use of the comparison between Nasser and Hitler--both, in his view, "demagogic dictators who broke international law." This is questionable because nationalizing industry is of course no necessary sign of fascism. The irony, in fact, is that Herman strongly believes that an instance of "economic violence" ought to have been met by extreme REAL violence; England, France, and Israel were weak for stopping short of destroying Egypt.
Herman also decides to approvingly bring up the CIA overthrow of Iranian president Mossadegh in the 1950s, when the latter tried to nationalize the Iranian oil industry, taking power away from British Petroleum. Overthrowing democratically elected leaders ought to be considered a low point for American foreign policy (and this instance provided the blueprint for Guatemala and to an extent Chile), but Herman seems unafraid of saying that when the United States is doing as it should, it orchestrates coups based on oil money. Hey, at least he's honest!
Then there are a few minor quibbles, like Herman's scathing ad hominem against Dag Hammerskjold, which offers no real evidence or direct quotations to support his characterization. He also sneers at Egypt's position as a "non-aligned nation," witholding allegiance from either America or Russia. Gosh, you'd think that if economic self-determination were enough to kill over, then political self-determination ought to be a right, too.
What we should really glean from the article though, if we take Herman's though to be characteristic of the Weekly Standard's strain of (neo)conservatism, is that the world order can only be truly just when the United States uses its power to obstruct peace talks and encourage the utmost use of force. And Herman is *complaining* about the current state of affairs??
Post a Comment
<< Home