Review of Descent to Suez Diaries 1951 -56 by Evelyn Shuckburgh.

This book , a diary by a man who was close to the leaders in British government between 1951 and 1956 , has been in my library for some time, but I had never read the book. In challenged to write a review I speedily read the diary and wanted to know more about the era and what happened in the Suez crisis. It largely concerns the British view of foreign affairs in Europe the Middle East and during a crucial period in Anglo American relations when that “ special relationship” between the two Western post war powers went into sharp decline and hit a low over the handling of Egypt , Nasser and the Suez crisis. In essence Britain, under the prime ministership of Anthony Eden ( and together with France and Israel) thought that control of the Suez Canal and speedy access to vital oil supplies was worth going to war about, whereas the USA under Eisenhower thought that the cockpit in the middle east was not worth addressing with a military solution. The ironies abound here in the light of subsequent history. Military success was in fact undermined by political and strategic failures and Suez was deemed to be the nadir for the British empire. Decolonization and independence for Britain’s former empire countries in the rest of Africa were a logical consequence in the later fifties and sixties.

Sir Evelyn Shuckburgh was a well educated, well connected upper class government official or public servant who served as Private Secretary to Anthony Eden between 1951 and 1954, when Eden was the British Foreign secretary and he was then in charge of Middle Eastern Affairs in the Foreign office from 1954 to 1956, Eden finally succeeding Churchill as Prime Minister in 1955. Shuckburgh kept a diary and the point of it all was that he was in a unique position to observe and interact with those in power at a time of extraordinary decisions; he was an advisor, and intelligent commentator and an industrious amanuensis . Why keep a diary when you have an important and pressurized job to do? To write about the sayings and doings of politicians and key players in the unfolding international dramas, to write for your personal pleasure and to de-stress and to capture the moment for posterity, for your writing to become a source for historians of the future and yourself become a footnote in history. All these factors are at work. The fascination of a diary is that it offers a ring side seat and a blow by blow account of a witness to key moments. Its that mix of excessive daily detail and the occasional inspired shaft of insight of importance that makes reading a diary both utterly boring and grippingly voyeuristic. I do not particularly care at the social niceties of seating which politician or colonel on the left or the right at a dinner party, but Nasser’s comment that he would take one Palestine refugee family for every five Egyptians to work on the Aswam Dam ( reported second hand) is worth recording.

Shuckburgh’s diaries for this period ran to 400 000 and this published version runs to 200 000 and it is a very long read. It was only published in 1986, so in effect observed a 30 year rule convention in the release of British government papers. But even when it was published it raised some controversy as it was thought to be somewhat indiscreet about his famous masters. In reading the diaries today, one wanders what the fuss was about. You need to do an awful lot of reading through the treacle of minutia to find those deeply embedded secrets. The personal and family details are mixed with his insights on significant political and public moments. The story line gets lost but it depends on which story you are looking for. It is equally interesting to spot what is left out of a diary – for example, there is no economic analysis or details on the finances of oil or international corporate strategies. However in the diary, East West trade relations in the mid 1950s and discussions on the H Bomb get mixed with pruning the roses, making a cabinet or getting your kids to school. The fascination lies in realizing how our modern world and the troubled hot spots that still remain Egypt, Libya, Syria, Israel, Palestine, were rooted in the misjudgments , misunderstandings and failures of politics and strategy in the mid 1950s. The world was not really a simpler place , the cold war could become hot at ay moment, but international politics was governed by the power relations of the great nations. Nasser wanted to nationalize the Suez Canal, seize political autonomy for Egypt, flex his military muscles and find funding for the great project , the Aswan Dam. He was underestimated by all as indeed were so many aspiring, upstart leaders of middle eastern countries. You realize too how longevity (Churchill) and ill health (Eden) shaped decisions about achieving power, keeping power and letting go of power and in the process changed the futures of millions of little people in many countries. History is not a succession of “ one damn thing after another” but is rather a succession of small connected dots through time and linked successive eras. Our world today is a legacy of the world of 50 years ago. ( )