BUILDING A NEW GLOBAL ORDER: EISENHOWER, SUEZ, AND THE PURSUIT OF PEACE A Dissertation Submitted to the Temple University Graduate Board In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPY By Daniel J. Cormier December 2017 Examining Committee Members: Richard H. Immerman, Advisory Chair, Temple University, Department of History Petra Goedde, Temple University, Department of History Eileen Ryan, Temple University, Department of History Frank Jones, External Member, U.S. Army War College, Department of National Security Studies i © Copyright 2017 By Daniel J. Cormier All Rights Reserved ii ABSTRACT This study illuminates Dwight D. Eisenhower’s efforts during his first term as President to advance new global norms that would make peace a more enduring aspect of international relations. Between 1945 and 1952, Eisenhower was an engaged supporter of America’s efforts to move the world away from the “war-system” that characterized the early twentieth century. The venture included implementing the Bretton Woods economic agreements, creating the United Nations, adopting the UN Human Rights Convention and supporting collective security organizations, such as NATO. Combined, these efforts mitigated the primary causes of war and advanced new standards of global statecraft. They also competed for influence over US foreign policy and for global support. Eisenhower’s election in 1952 represented a mandate to prevent an early failure of the undertaking. Within months of taking office, Ike implemented a comprehensive grand strategy that included the imaginative use of military and economic power, as well as the addition of moral power to guide US foreign policy. By 1956, this grand strategy had advanced America’s leadership in global affairs through the advocacy of new norms of conduct that produced mutually beneficial norms and standards. However, the Suez Crisis threatened to derail the American project. Eisenhower understood the stakes and decided to oppose the British and French efforts to secure the Suez Canal Zone by force. Throughout the crisis, America upheld the new standards of nation-state conduct agreed to in the United Nations Charter. This decision consolidated the position of the free world and served the nation’s enduring interest of advancing a peaceful world order. iii DEDICATION This work is dedicated to my family. Thank you for providing the love and support that allowed me to successfully pursue and complete this project. I also dedicate this work to those people who, like Ike, advance humanity through dialogue and education. These heroes do not enflame passions or turn to polemics. Instead, they bring to our world a healthy measure of clear and critical thinking. We need more martyrs for moderation. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This dissertation is the result of mentors who advanced my intellectual development by encouraging me to explore, to inquire, and to construct. They accepted my limitations and stimulated a desire in me to add my voice to a robust conversation. This journey made me a better person, critical thinker, and educator. First among these teachers is Richard H. Immerman. I am indebted to him for the example he provides as a scholar and as an intellectual. He encouraged me to think deeply and creatively about issues, as well as doing this in ways that pushed me to grow as a person and toward self-sufficiency. He is a model of character, who was a constant reminder to me that there are good people in the world who want to truly understand challenges, assess issues critically, and work to make things better. I would also like to recognize the faculty, staff, and students of Temple University’s History Department. I am grateful for the learning environment they provided and the commitment they have to the development of critical thinking. The Department fosters the passionate curiosity that is needed to address the complex issues of our world. They pushed me past my comfortable thoughts and provided a safe space to explore new perspectives. I was honored that they allowed this “old soldier” into their ranks. This dissertation would not have been possible without the US Army War College. The institution allowed me a unique opportunity to develop and grow as a leader. I also want to thank the War College’s Library Staff. They are not only some of the kindest and responsive people with whom I have ever worked, they also epitomize professionalism. In particular, I would like to acknowledge the efforts of Margaret ‘Dianne’ Baumgardner and Travis Ferrell. They provided invaluable assistance, particularly during my mid-dissertation sabbatical to Africa. Additionally, I want to recognize the Ph.D. Commiseration Society of Carlisle. A spontaneous association of peers and their families who shared a common desire to succeed and to build friendships. Finally, I would like to thank Dr. Frank L. Jones. Frank has been both a mentor and a friend. He encouraged my intellectual curiosity, shored up my resilience, and provided a model of complex and critical thinking that I aspire to emulate. v PREFACE I chose the subject of this dissertation in response to an inquiry that has framed my adult life. In the middle of the summer of 1989, I visited the Federal Republic of Germany as an US Army ROTC cadet. During the weeks of training, I toured the inner German border that distinguished West from East Germany. As I hiked the boundary, delineated by barbwire, fences, minefields, and watchtowers, it struck me that ideas drove the efforts of both sides. Ideas distinguished the “Free” from the Soviet world, as well as the people’s [i.e., workers] world from the capitalist class. Both orientations stood in opposition to the other, requiring killing if needed. It was clear that beliefs are powerful. At the time, this reality of competing views and the need for a military response that justified the separation of families, nations, and Europe seemed to me normal. My generation grew up under the shadow of the Cold War, and its artifacts were permanent fixtures in our minds. Mikhail Gorbachev’s efforts at openness (glasnost) and economic restructuring (perestroika) were in the news and taught in my courses. Yet I understood them as just novel factors, not necessarily determinative or revolutionary in significance. After my summer of adventure, I returned to the University of New Hampshire and the easy pattern of undergraduate life. But just weeks later my worldview became unmoored. I watched with amazement as all over Eastern Europe peaceful protests emerged to end communist one-party rule. The governments that stood since World War II began to fall and their citizens surged westward, moving across border crossings vi all along the iron curtain. This included the opening of the Berlin Wall in November of 1989. I shared in these previously “captive peoples’” euphoria and knew something momentous was occurring. Still, I found it hard to reconcile these events with the narratives that informed my understanding of the world. I joined with many in thinking that a wave of change would follow that would create peace. I wondered if new ideas might emerge that would redefine the world. I pondered if the future would be more about the building of bridges instead of walls. At the time, my line of questioning was superficial. I remember naively asking a senior Army officer whether the United States would still need all of its military forces. My conception of reality remained fixated too neatly into the comfort of binary choices. The following July, as a second lieutenant new to the US Army, I knew that I was in the midst of a changing international order. A key example of my evidence was the East German government’s decision to demolish the Berlin Wall. The efforts of the men with sledgehammers to destroy first the barbed wire and then concrete edifice that stood since 1961 transcended the confines of the city. It became a symbolic gesture for Europe and the world. Weeks later, this hopeful sound of change emanating from Europe no longer carried as clearly. It became one note among many, as other events competed with it or drowned it out. One of these disrupting factors was Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in early August of 1990. I remember the shock clearly, as the aggression occurred immediately after I started my initial Army training in tactics and leadership. I watched with fascination and apprehension as events unfolded in the Middle East. The America of President George H.W. Bush declared that it would not let this aggression vii stand, and military units throughout the force began preparations to deploy to the region. The lieutenant in me gained a renewed sense of purpose, and I worked hard to prepare for the test. In the background of my thoughts, the student of history and diplomacy tried to clarify the meaning of events. The attention of soldiers is often fickle, but unremarkably it remains focused on world events. Cable news coverage assisted my search, adding a consistent drumbeat of information to the equation. Through venues such as CNN, I watched the US president try to frame and clarify the stakes at play, as well as to build support for America’s solutions. I remain struck by President Bush’s efforts to clarify and resolve the crisis. On September 11, 1990, in an address to a Joint Session of Congress, he explained the significance of events in front of America’s elected representatives. He mentioned his immediate deployment of the 82d Airborne Division to the defense of Saudi Arabia, a move commonly seen as tactically insignificant. America’s chief executive sought to amplify the gesture, explaining that the division’s presence represented the resolve to defend “civilized values around the world.” He called for Iraq to reverse its aggression, highlighting a global determination to preserve a “peaceful international order.” President Bush pointed out that a new period defined the world, as the United States and the Soviet Union pledged to produce a United Nations’ response.