The moment a rising power challenges an established one is always fraught with peril. History offers a playbook, and today’s strategists are reading it closely.
In the autumn of 1956, the world watched as a dramatic crisis unfolded around the Suez Canal. Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser’s decision to nationalize the canal was met with a secret plot by Britain, France, and Israel to invade Egypt and seize it back . While militarily successful in the short term, the campaign ended in a humiliating withdrawal for the European powers, forced by immense political and financial pressure from the United States .
This event, the Suez Crisis, did not just change the map of the Middle East; it marked a fundamental transfer of global power. It was the moment the world understood that the United Kingdom could no longer conduct an independent foreign policy against American wishes, effectively signaling the end of the British Empire and the dawn of the American era .
Today, as the United States navigates its strategic competition with a rising China, some strategists see more than a faint echo of 1956. The question is being asked: Is the United States now in the position of the British Empire, facing a challenge from a powerful new actor, just as Britain once faced from the US? And if so, what lessons can be drawn from that pivotal moment in history?
The Suez Crisis: A Tale of Two Powers
To understand the analogy, one must first recall the dynamics of the Suez Crisis.
· The Established Power: Great Britain, though weakened after World War II, still saw itself as a global imperial power. The Suez Canal was the “lifeline of the Empire,” crucial for trade, particularly oil shipments, and for military mobility . British Prime Minister Anthony Eden saw Nasser as a direct threat to British interests and prestige.
· The Rising Power: The United States, already the dominant economic and military force in the West, pursued a different strategy. President Dwight D. Eisenhower feared that a colonial-style war would push Arab nations toward the Soviet Union . He believed in containing communism through diplomacy and international consensus, not unilateral force.
The critical break came when Britain, along with France and Israel, invaded Egypt without American consent. The US response was swift and brutal. It condemned the invasion at the United Nations and, most decisively, threatened to sell its holdings of British pound sterling, a move that would have triggered a catastrophic collapse of the British financial system . Faced with this economic ultimatum, Britain was forced to capitulate and withdraw its forces.
The lesson was stark: military might was useless without financial sovereignty, and global leadership had irrevocably passed from London to Washington .
The Modern Analogy: US and China
Fast forward to the present day, and the structural parallels are striking, even if the roles are not perfectly aligned.
· The Established Power: The United States has been the global hegemon for decades, with the US dollar serving as the world’s reserve currency—a position of privilege akin to Britain’s financial dominance in its time. American military power is projected globally, and its institutions have set the international order.
· The Rising Power: China, through its explosive economic growth, has emerged as a peer competitor. It is challenging American influence through initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative, building its military capabilities, and seeking to shape global norms. Like the US in 1956, China increasingly has the economic weight to exert significant pressure on the world stage.
The core of the modern analogy lies in the financial dimension. Just as the US used the pound’s vulnerability as a lever against Britain in 1956, some strategists worry that China could use its vast holdings of US Treasury bonds as a strategic weapon. The theory suggests that a “dollar crisis” could be to America what the “sterling crisis” was to Britain—a sudden, painful demotion from economic supremacy .
Furthermore, the ideological conflict mirrors the past. In 1956, the US positioned itself against “colonialism,” framing its actions as support for self-determination against outdated imperial practices . Today, the US often frames its competition with China as a conflict between democracy and authoritarianism, again claiming the mantle of the future-facing power.
Key Differences in the 21st Century
However, the analogy is not perfect. A savvy strategist must recognize the critical differences:
· Economic Interdependence: The US and Chinese economies are deeply intertwined in a way that the US and UK economies were not in the 1950s. A financial conflict would be mutually assured destruction, making it a less likely first-strike option.
· Military Reality: The United States remains the world’s preeminent military power, with a global network of alliances. China’s military rise is focused regionally. The dynamics of direct military confrontation are far more complex.
· The Nature of Power: In the 21st century, power is also exercised through technology, cyber capabilities, and control of critical supply chains—dimensions that did not exist in 1956.
Lessons for Today’s World
So, what are the actionable lessons from Suez for American policymakers?
· 1. Avoid Strategic Solitude: Britain’s fatal error was acting without, and indeed against, its most powerful ally. For the US, the lesson is to reinforce, not weaken, its network of alliances. Confronting China requires a coalition, not a unilateral effort.
· 2. Acknowledge the Inevitability of Change: The Suez Crisis demonstrated that the rise and fall of great powers is a historical constant. Clinging to outdated forms of control is a recipe for disaster. The US must manage China’s rise through adaptation and integration into a reformed international system, rather than through pure containment.
· 3. Understand the Limits of Force: Military power is a blunt instrument. Britain could win the battle for the canal but lost the political and economic war. For the US, this underscores that the competition with China will be won or lost in the economic and technological spheres, not necessarily on a battlefield.
· 4. The Dangers of Nostalgia: British actions in Suez were driven in part by a nostalgic desire to reclaim its imperial glory. Similarly, any US strategy driven by a simple desire to return to the “unipolar moment” of the 1990s is doomed. The world has changed, and strategy must change with it. As one scholar notes, echoes of empire can powerfully, and sometimes dangerously, shape a nation’s worldview .
Conclusion: The Peril and the Path
The Suez Crisis is not a perfect map for the US-China rivalry, but it is a powerful cautionary tale. It teaches that the transfer of power is often not a gentle, linear process but a dramatic and disruptive one, where financial weapons can prove more decisive than military ones.
For the United States, the ghost of the British Empire in 1956 is a warning against hubris, isolation, and the failure to recognize that the world’s tectonic plates are shifting. The challenge is to navigate this new reality with the strategic acumen that Britain lacked—to compete vigorously but wisely, and to secure American interests in a world where it is no longer the unquestioned master, but must instead be the savvy architect of a new balance of power. The lesson of Suez is that the established power must ultimately accommodate the rising one, or risk being undone by it.
Centre for Nigeria Progress 