美國在蘇伊士運河危機中的作用和影響
發(fā)布時間：2018-09-12 16:50
【摘要】：1956年發(fā)生的蘇伊士運河危機是一次復雜的國際事件，也是冷戰(zhàn)時期比較重要的事件之一。它雖然只持續(xù)了幾個月，但它的起因和過程都是復雜的，美國在整個危機中發(fā)揮了微妙的作用。危機的結果影響了美國對中東的政策以及美英、美埃關系的發(fā)展，危機所引起的后果是深遠的，，并遠遠超出了中東的范圍。 在這場危機中，美國、英國、法國、以色列、埃及、蘇聯(lián)等國都有充分的表演，雖然它是發(fā)生在埃及的事件，卻是大國博弈的一次典型事件。在這其中，美國在危機的過程中起到了十分重要的平衡作用。美國在蘇伊士運河危機中采取了和平解決危機的政策，為危機的和平解決做出了極大的努力，但它的政策受到英法等國的抵觸，未能阻止戰(zhàn)爭的爆發(fā)，又產(chǎn)生了預想不到的后果。 近代的蘇伊士運河于1869年正式開通，蘇伊士運河公司成立于1858年，之后公司由英法兩國把持。美蘇冷戰(zhàn)開始后，美蘇兩國對中東的爭奪加劇，埃及也成為重要的爭奪目標。埃及拒絕加參加美國推動成立的巴格達條約組織，并向蘇聯(lián)購買軍火武器，美國就以取消援建阿斯旺水壩的貸款為手段逼迫埃及，納賽爾卻宣布將蘇伊士運河公司收歸國有，由此導致了了蘇伊士運河危機的爆發(fā)。可見，危機的發(fā)生既與蘇伊士運河的歷史淵源相關，又與當時美蘇冷戰(zhàn)的時代背景相連。 蘇伊士運河危機爆發(fā)后，與運河有重大利益關系的國家都做出了不同反應，各個國家的不同反應為以后實行不同的政策埋下了伏筆。美國做出了和平解決危機的決定，但是在具體的政策和實施上卻受到國內各種因素的影響，美國的國會、公眾輿論、中央情報局、總統(tǒng)和國務卿在蘇伊士戰(zhàn)爭爆發(fā)以前，做出了不同的決策和產(chǎn)生了不同的影響。國會和公眾輿論并未產(chǎn)生實質性的作用，只是成為總統(tǒng)反對戰(zhàn)爭的一個工具。中央情報局沒有提供準確和完全肯定的情報，致使美國未能及時阻止戰(zhàn)爭的爆發(fā)，卻從另一面限制了美國和平手段所起的作用�？偨y(tǒng)和國務卿是美國外交政策的最終決定者，他們?yōu)楹推浇鉀Q危機進行了長達三個月的馬拉松式的談判，雖然沒有改變英法使用武力的想法，卻延遲了戰(zhàn)爭的爆發(fā)。 蘇伊士運河戰(zhàn)爭爆發(fā)后，影響美國外交決策的各部門，主要包括國家安全委員會、參謀長聯(lián)席會議、中央情報局、總統(tǒng)和國務卿又開展了不同的的外交政策和實踐，對戰(zhàn)爭的結束起到了重要的作用。美國國家安全委員會討論制定了�；饹Q議草案，美國參謀長聯(lián)席會議提供了軍事方面的信息和建議，美國在軍事方面做好了準備，美國中央情報局對蘇聯(lián)方面的情報分析準確，把蘇聯(lián)威脅當作迫使英法投降的一種手段。艾森豪威爾和杜勒斯繼續(xù)致力于外交實踐，對促使戰(zhàn)爭的結束起到了至關重要的作用。 美國在整個危機中的外交決策和實踐的過程中對不同國家產(chǎn)生了不同的影響。英法方面，戰(zhàn)爭發(fā)生之前，英法反對美國的政策，又想得到美國的支持，一方面與美國進行外交談判，希望爭取美國對他們軍事行動的支持，另一方面對美國的失望和抱怨不斷增多，最終與美國分道揚鑣發(fā)動了戰(zhàn)爭。戰(zhàn)爭發(fā)生之后，在美國的調和和壓力之下，又不得不接受停火決議，從埃及撤軍。埃及方面，埃及支持美國的政策，希望通過美國限制英法的行為以緩解危機，戰(zhàn)爭發(fā)生后，又全力抵抗英法以的入侵，聯(lián)合美國共同迫使了英法以三國的撤軍。蘇聯(lián)方面，美國警告蘇聯(lián)不要使用武力，蘇聯(lián)不想與美國發(fā)生武力戰(zhàn)爭，只想利用這場戰(zhàn)爭獲取利益，所以未軍事干涉蘇伊士運河危機。美國作為一個大國，在危機中發(fā)揮了重要的平衡作用，讓英法與蘇埃相互制衡，改變了危機的走向和結局。
[Abstract]:The Suez Canal Crisis in 1956 was a complex international event and one of the more important events during the Cold War. Although it lasted only a few months, its causes and processes were complex. The United States played a subtle role in the whole crisis. The outcome of the crisis affected American policy towards the Middle East and the United States, Britain and the United States. The consequences of the development of the relationship between Egypt and Egypt are far-reaching and far beyond the Middle East.
In this crisis, the United States, Britain, France, Israel, Egypt, the Soviet Union and other countries have full performances, although it happened in Egypt, but it is a typical event in the game of great powers. Among them, the United States played a very important balance in the process of the crisis. The United States adopted a peaceful settlement in the Suez Canal crisis. The policy of crisis has made great efforts for the peaceful settlement of the crisis, but its policy has been contradicted by Britain, France and other countries. It has failed to prevent the outbreak of war and has produced unexpected consequences.
The modern Suez Canal was officially opened in 1869, and the Suez Canal Company was founded in 1858. It was then controlled by Britain and France. Arms and weapons, the United States to cancel loans to build Aswan Dam as a means to force Egypt, Nasser announced the nationalization of the Suez Canal Company, which led to the outbreak of the Suez Canal crisis.
After the Suez Canal Crisis broke out, countries with great interests in the canal made different reactions, and the different reactions of each country paved the way for different policies in the future. Public opinion, the CIA, the President and the Secretary of State made different decisions and had different impacts before the Soviet War broke out. Congress and public opinion did not play a substantive role, but became a tool for the President to oppose the war. The CIA did not provide accurate and fully affirmative information, resulting in the United States Failure to stop the outbreak of war in time limits the role of American peaceful means on the other hand.
After the outbreak of the Suez Canal War, the various departments that influenced American foreign policy-making, including the National Security Council, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Central Intelligence Agency, the President and the Secretary of State, carried out different foreign policies and practices, which played an important role in the end of the war. The National Security Council of the United States discussed and formulated a cease-fire decision. In the draft, the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff provided military information and suggestions, the United States was ready for military preparations, the CIA was accurate in its intelligence analysis of the Soviet Union, and regarded the Soviet threat as a means of forcing Britain and France to surrender. The end played a crucial role.
In Anglo-French aspect, before the war, Britain and France opposed American policy and wanted American support. On the one hand, they negotiated diplomatically with the United States, hoping to win the support of the United States for their military action, on the other hand, they wanted the support of the United States. After the war, under the mediation and pressure of the United States, Egypt had to accept the cease-fire resolution and withdraw its troops from Egypt. Egypt supported the U.S. policy and hoped to alleviate the crisis through the U.S. restrictions on Anglo-French actions. After the war, Egypt resisted fully. The Soviet Union warned the Soviet Union not to use force, the Soviet Union did not want to use force war with the United States, only want to use this war for profit, so no military intervention in the Suez Canal crisis. The balance function made the checks and balances between Britain and France and the Soviet Union changed the trend and outcome of the crisis.
【學位授予單位】：山東師范大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2012
【分類號】：K153
本文編號：2239625
[Abstract]:The Suez Canal Crisis in 1956 was a complex international event and one of the more important events during the Cold War. Although it lasted only a few months, its causes and processes were complex. The United States played a subtle role in the whole crisis. The outcome of the crisis affected American policy towards the Middle East and the United States, Britain and the United States. The consequences of the development of the relationship between Egypt and Egypt are far-reaching and far beyond the Middle East.
In this crisis, the United States, Britain, France, Israel, Egypt, the Soviet Union and other countries have full performances, although it happened in Egypt, but it is a typical event in the game of great powers. Among them, the United States played a very important balance in the process of the crisis. The United States adopted a peaceful settlement in the Suez Canal crisis. The policy of crisis has made great efforts for the peaceful settlement of the crisis, but its policy has been contradicted by Britain, France and other countries. It has failed to prevent the outbreak of war and has produced unexpected consequences.
The modern Suez Canal was officially opened in 1869, and the Suez Canal Company was founded in 1858. It was then controlled by Britain and France. Arms and weapons, the United States to cancel loans to build Aswan Dam as a means to force Egypt, Nasser announced the nationalization of the Suez Canal Company, which led to the outbreak of the Suez Canal crisis.
After the Suez Canal Crisis broke out, countries with great interests in the canal made different reactions, and the different reactions of each country paved the way for different policies in the future. Public opinion, the CIA, the President and the Secretary of State made different decisions and had different impacts before the Soviet War broke out. Congress and public opinion did not play a substantive role, but became a tool for the President to oppose the war. The CIA did not provide accurate and fully affirmative information, resulting in the United States Failure to stop the outbreak of war in time limits the role of American peaceful means on the other hand.
After the outbreak of the Suez Canal War, the various departments that influenced American foreign policy-making, including the National Security Council, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Central Intelligence Agency, the President and the Secretary of State, carried out different foreign policies and practices, which played an important role in the end of the war. The National Security Council of the United States discussed and formulated a cease-fire decision. In the draft, the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff provided military information and suggestions, the United States was ready for military preparations, the CIA was accurate in its intelligence analysis of the Soviet Union, and regarded the Soviet threat as a means of forcing Britain and France to surrender. The end played a crucial role.
In Anglo-French aspect, before the war, Britain and France opposed American policy and wanted American support. On the one hand, they negotiated diplomatically with the United States, hoping to win the support of the United States for their military action, on the other hand, they wanted the support of the United States. After the war, under the mediation and pressure of the United States, Egypt had to accept the cease-fire resolution and withdraw its troops from Egypt. Egypt supported the U.S. policy and hoped to alleviate the crisis through the U.S. restrictions on Anglo-French actions. After the war, Egypt resisted fully. The Soviet Union warned the Soviet Union not to use force, the Soviet Union did not want to use force war with the United States, only want to use this war for profit, so no military intervention in the Suez Canal crisis. The balance function made the checks and balances between Britain and France and the Soviet Union changed the trend and outcome of the crisis.
【學位授予單位】：山東師范大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2012
【分類號】：K153
【參考文獻】
中國期刊全文數(shù)據(jù)庫 前8條
1 武向峰;;蘇伊士運河戰(zhàn)爭前的美國外交決策分析[J];重慶科技學院學報(社會科學版);2008年11期
2 楊冬燕;關于1956年蘇伊士運河危機的英美外交史學[J];世界歷史;2001年04期
3 蘭嵐;;20世紀50年代美國的中東政策——從歐米加計劃到艾森豪威爾主義的誕生[J];世界歷史;2009年01期
4 羅會鈞;美國與1956年蘇伊士運河危機[J];湖南師范大學社會科學學報;1998年06期
5 溫顯娟;論蘇伊士運河戰(zhàn)爭中的英美關系[J];歷史教學;2003年10期
6 楊冬燕;巴格達條約的形成及其對中東的影響——英美在中東的矛盾與爭奪[J];南京大學學報(哲學.人文科學.社會科學版);2001年02期
7 胡才珍;左昌飛;;從蘇伊士運河事件看英美“特殊關系”[J];武漢大學學報(人文科學版);2006年02期
8 朱偉東;蘇伊士運河戰(zhàn)爭后英美“特殊關系”的變化[J];西安聯(lián)合大學學報;2001年01期
中國碩士學位論文全文數(shù)據(jù)庫 前6條
1 楊小林;試析艾森豪威爾政府的中東政策[D];陜西師范大學;2001年
2 馮志偉;艾森豪威爾、杜勒斯與美國外交政策的制定（1953—1959）[D];陜西師范大學;2002年
3 石玉瑤;英國麥克米倫時期外交政策調整探析[D];華中師范大學;2006年
4 褚浩;艾森豪威爾政府對埃及政策研究[D];云南師范大學;2006年
5 汪芳;論哈羅德·麥克米倫與蘇伊士運河危機[D];浙江大學;2007年
6 戴中伏;論二戰(zhàn)后艾登的對埃政策[D];浙江師范大學;2009年
本文編號：2239625
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/shekelunwen/xifanglishiwenhua/2239625.html
最近更新
教材專著
