Suez Crisis Term Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Suez Crisis - Term Paper Example Ever since the proposal of the Suez Canal was suggested, controversy broke out among key nations. The canal offered an important strategic advantage which was recognized by many different powers. The assignment will focus on the construction and opening of the canal in order to better understand its importance in the modern world. The factors which contributed to the beginning of the Crisis will also be examined. The Crisis itself will be explored with its complex political goings on and brutal military action. The assignment will also take a look at how and why the Crisis ended. Finally, the aftermath of the Crisis will be examined and assessed in order to see how it affected the countries involved and their future relations. 2. THE SUEZ CANAL The Suez Canal was opened on 17 November 1869; there by, creating a water way between Africa and Asia; for, it allowed ships to sail directly between the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean. The canal was 160 km [101 miles] long and 296m at its narrowest point. [New World Encyclopedia Contributors, 2008] Although, Napoleon had entertained ideas of opening such a canal, it was Ferdinand de Lesseps, a French diplomat who put the dream into motion for a linking water way which would be accessible to ships of all nations. He presented his idea to Egypt and in 1854 the Viceroy of Egypt, Mohammed Said Pasha, agreed upon the construction of the Suez Canal. A prospectus was circulated among the leading nations of the time in order to promote the idea of the canal and to find investors to sponsor the construction. This lead to the formation of the Universal Company of the Suez Maritime Canal on 20 December 1858. Due, to rivalry between France and Britain during this time, Britain was loth for France to extend its power in the region where the canal was to be constructed. Therefore, Britain refused to invest in the canal and campaigned against its construction. This led to a lack in foreign investors; thus, it was that Egypt receiv ed 44% in shares of the canal. Construction on the canal was finally begun on 25 April 18599. [British Broadcasting Corporation, 2009] It has been reported that the French employed forced labor from Egypt to construct the canal. Britain used this leverage to disrupt work on the canal by insighting unrest among the workers. It has been estimated that over 30 thousand Egyptians and 1.5 million foreigners helped in the construction of the canal. Due, to the hard working conditions over 120 thousand laborers died. [NWEC, 2008] The construction of the canal cost almost double the original estimate, totaling $100 million, making it $1 million per mile. France conducted the tariffs which were to be paid by vessels travelling on the canal. [Penfield, 1907 p7] It is ironic that three quarters of the traffic of the canal during the first year was made up of British vessels transporting goods to and from their colonial territories as well as transporting military and administrative personnel m ore quickly to Africa; thus, aiding Britain in the expansion of its colonies. [New World Encyclopedia, 2008] It took only 14 to 16 hours to traverse the canal. The canal shortened the route from Britain to Bombay in India from 10,860 miles to just over 4,600 miles. [Penfield, 1907 p15] Egypt’s Viceroy, Said Pasha, died before the completion of the canal and was succeeded by his nephew, Ismail Pasha. He was an ambitious man who

Workplace Risk Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Workplace Risk - Case Study Example The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court, that the movement of the reel was caused by a gravity risk and the failure to provide adequate device for safety was the main cause of the injury. In addition, the reel had to be moved from a high to a low elevator and the danger that was supposed to be guarded against came about from the force of the reel. The plaintiffs’ injury was as a result of a direct consequence of the reel going downstairs as if he was positioned in the reel’s path (Victor Vs New York Exchange, Case no 197). As a result, he suffered from an injury that was elevation related while acting as a counterweight pulley to descend an 800 pound reel down stairs. He is said to have been dragged into the make shift pulley when the reel rapidly descended downstairs. The question was whether the plaintiff injury was as a result of a direct consequence of failure to have adequate protection against such a risk that arose from physically differential elevation. 240(1), of labor law claims that a liability strict statute was designed to prevent accidents where protection devices of the above enumerated injury of the statute proved to be insufficient to shield the plaintiff from any injury that occurred from the force of gravity to the reel. Nevertheless, since the plaintiff was injured while trying to descend following the reels path, he is entitled to recover under section 240(1), and should not be denied any legal course. The differential elevation was not seen as de minimis, because the weight of th e reel and the amount of force it had was enough to generate the course of a short descent, as well as cause harm to the worker (Victor Vs New York Exchange, Case no 197). The trial courts showed that the worker was indeed injured, in addition to suffering from permanent and serious injuries on both his hands while trying to descend the reel downstairs, as well as installing defendant power