Scramble for Africa: Author and copyright Matthew Saul How significant were economic factors as causes of the Scramble for Africa? The Scramble for Africa was the most striking manifestation of the ‘new imperialism’ which developed towards the end of the 1800’s. Notable due to an impression that the days of the Empire were decaying and for the speed and vastness of its occurrence. There have been many interpretations for its cause; some such as J.A Hobson believe it to be a natural result of capitalist development in Europe. While others such as D.K Fieldhouse are able to argue that it was purely a consequence of European nationalism. Whatever the interpretation, the period is centralised around 1880 and 1900. Seeing Britain claim approximately 5 million square miles of territory, with France claiming 3.5 million square miles and the other participants in the scramble for land: Germany, Belgium and Italy sharing 2.5 million. The rivalry between Britain and France for Egypt is often considered as the catalyst for the whole scramble. It is with this that I shall begin my consideration of the economic factors influencing Britain’s involvement. Egypt at this stage was important to Britain, as they wanted to establish trade with the region and they wanted access to the lucrative trade routes which it afforded them.
Thus it can be seen that economic factors provided Britain’s main interest in Egypt, disregarding minor factors such as missionaries who would have provoked very little interest from the government. However, there were other factors influencing Britain’s occupation of Egypt. If the Ottoman Empire had not been in a state of decline, there would have been no problem, Britain had a good relationship with the Ottoman’s and so were happy for them to have Egypt. The prevailing tensions in Europe, promoted a fear that Egypt might fall under the control of a rival European power, who could exclude the British from the region. France being the most prominent cause for concern, unhappy that Britain had become the major shareholders in the Suez Canal (link to India), which they had built. Thus we see national rivalry becoming a factor in consideration of the reason for Britain’s colonisation of Egypt. Further emphasis of the role which economic factors played, is evidenced when we learn that it was actually the economic collapse in Egypt which led to Britain and France getting their foot in the door. The two nations developing the Anglo-French rescue plan in 1878, establishing dual control of the economy.
The Essay on To What Extent Was Louis XVI Responsible For The Revolution In France From 1789 To 1792?
The French revolution took place in France from 1789 to 1792, during the reign of King Louis XVI. It was an expression of discontent from the poor towards the rich, and of how they thought France was governed unfairly. The revolution is considered one of the most important events in human history, as it has continued to shape societies and the ways we live today (Cody, 2008). Through examining ...
A duality formed through their interests in the Suez Canal. If the Egyptian economy was in such a bad state, why did either nation waste time and money trying to restore it? Perhaps highlighting that the Suez Canal and the strategic position which Egypt afforded was the first thought, with establishment of trade with the region a secondary consideration. It was the stringent financial measures imposed by the dubious power balance which, although bringing financial stability, brought great unrest amongst the Egyptian population. Leading to the emergence of a nationalist movement and the virtual collapse of law and order by 1882. Resulting in June 1882 with the deaths of 50 Europeans, and subsequently the British invasion and occupation of Egypt. The British decided to end the Anglo-French agreement and go in alone. Ostensibly, their main motive was to avenge the deaths of 50 Europeans of different nationalities. If this was the motive, why did they feel the need to end the Anglo-French agreement, after all it was a European problem, men from not just Britain had been killed. Failure of diplomatic compromise between the two government’s must be a possible reason. If Britain had wanted Egypt purely for economic reasons then they would have been far better off establishing joint rule with France.
The Term Paper on French Revolution Turgot Economic Government
Introduction Anne Robert Jaques Turgot, baron l' Aul ne, was born in Paris on May 10, 1727 to a noble French family of Normandy. Following in the footsteps of his ancestors, who had furnished the state with numerous public officials, Turgot would achieve public renown as Intendant of Limoges and later as Controller General of all France. Although Turgot ended his public career in unfortunate ...
Thus maintaining not only the Egyptian trade but also trade with France, seemingly far more profitable. The French government refusing to allow the French to participate may have provided the British with an opportunity too good to ignore, the strategical ineptitude of the French becoming a factor. The French government did not allow French involvement in the smothering of the rebellion, consequently the British were able to prevail. The reason for this is unknown, a possible thought was that after the defeat of Alasce-Lorraine, they did not wish to precipitate any further conflicts, the history of the relationship, suggesting that conflicts would be likely. What ever the reason, France clearly resented the British occupation of Egypt, resulting in threats to flood the Nile from its source, causing in 1893 the annexation of Sudan, profitable only in that it maintained the Nile valley. Preventing the embarrassment of a French success and also maintaining the Suez Canal. Again ambiguity of either nationalistic, economic or simply strategic motives. The Sudan was taken by Britain towards the end of the partitioning, once a great bulk of the scramble had occurred. Britain’s involvement in West Africa evolved rather less ambiguously than the occupation of Egypt.
It is thought that the British government was not interested in colonial expansion in West Africa. Interest in acquiring possession of West African territories, came from British businessmen seeing opportunities for investment. Men such as George Goldie heading the United Africa Company, collecting palm oil, away from the coast, on the River Niger. Inland, suggesting that the businessmen themselves were giving consideration to strategic positioning. Britain then annexing the country to protect the interests of the British businessmen, referred to by the foreign office as ‘creeping imperialism’. Following this, British expansion in the West was led by a fear of the French and Belgians gaining land, a concern which also prompted Germany to seize Togoland and the Cameroons. Concerns that the animosity which was building could cause a war, led to the signing of the treaty of Berlin. Thus, it can be stated that Britain’s initial involvement in the West came from the actions of an economic elite, forcing the government to take colonies. Presumably if the capitalists had not been there, then the British government would not have been there. However, another thought which must be considered, is did these companies really need protecting? Even if they did, where was the need to take the area as British colony, why not simply offer support when needed.
The Essay on To What Extent Were Colonial Pressures Primarily Responsible for British Withdrawal from West Africa in the Years (1957-65)?
To what extent were colonial pressures primarily responsible for British withdrawal from West Africa in the years (1957-65)? Colonial pressure was a significant reason accounting for British withdrawal but other factors including a domestic attitudinal and cold war dynamics also played a role; however economic considerations were the likely primary cause for British withdrawal from West Africa. If ...
Thus we see forming the basis of an argument, that in the West at least, economic factors rather than being causes were in fact excuses. Providing circumstances which justify strengthening of the Empire and with it, maintenance of the estimate of British power. There is also a thought that rather than simply providing fortuitous circumstances, the capitalists were actually forced to establish companies in Africa by the politicians. Economic factors in both arguments are significant, as they allow for the spread of Imperialism. The reasons behind France wishing to develop a Western Africa Empire, are varied: was it driven by a desire to direct attention away from the national humiliation of 1871? Economic motives or because Britain was there, continuing the thoughts of national rivalry? Belgium’s involvement was seemingly fuelled by King Leopolds economic desires. Thus, at least in part we can see that Britain’s apparent fear at the emerging power of Belgium and France, was caused by the economic interests of these countries leaders. Further emphasis of the role which economic factors played in stirring up tensions between the European nations, comes with the actual terms of the treaty of Berlin: free trade in the Congo basin; Britain has the right to develop interests on the Niger and certain ground rules applied to future annexations.
The first two terms are clearly economic based. Allowing for the thought that as the partition speeded up after the treaty, the nations all wanted to have control of the river Niger and the Congo basin, the reason for this clearly being economic. Thus once the matter was settled amicably, the nations decided that they might as well get as much as they could to simply stop others. Thus both national rivalry and economic factors played major roles in the partition of Western Africa, turning it into a Scramble. The initial situation in East Africa was similar to that in the West, with business men rather than the British government, ostensibly leading the expansion. A major influence being the British East Africa Company, set up by a Sir William Mckinnon. The purpose being to develop trade in the aforementioned region. It has been suggested that the British government only offered their support in retaliation to the German’s offering support to a similar German outfit. A genuine concern for the safety of the businessmen? Possible alternatives, include the thought that it would perhaps be of strategic benefit, maintaining a presence in the area to keep Germany in check. Or, a more trivial thought is that it could have been for pride, a paranoid fear that Germany may gain more land than them, thus creating an image that they are more powerful.
The Essay on Us Foreign Policy National Interest
VITAL NATIONAL INTERESTS: One vital national interest we have today is the destruction of the spoils system and the removal of incompetent appointed officials. We also need to avoid becoming an imperial power, for it violates the principles of our own Constitution and Declaration of Independence (Vision 744). My third national interest is much like my second, because it is very important, "we must ...
Either explanation for British involvement has economics as a major factor, seemingly without the initial economic interest neither the German or British government would have had any interest in the region. It seems equally certain that neither government were there to make a huge profit, certainly the Americas and Asia were providing more attractive investment opportunities. Following a division of East Africa into ‘spheres of influence’ the British East Africa Company developed a substantial number of territories. In 1895 the company proved incapable of running the territories, so the British government took formal control. Companies usually fail because they are not making a profit, if this was the case, why would the British government wish to take control? Surely they would fair no better than Mckinnon, whose business credentials were well recognised through the making of his personal fortune through the shipping trade. A possible reason for Britain taking formal control could be to the maintain the national unity which it is believed colonisation brought back in Britain. A suggestion supported with Disraeli’s ‘forward policy’ of the 1870’s pursued in both Afghanistan and the Transvaal.
The Essay on National Interest Png Power Interests
Various forms of power can be used by any given country to pursue its perceived national interests. In this case, Papua New Guinea (PNG) will be examined. Although power cannot always be accurately defined it can be measured in certain dimensions. Military force can effectively assist a country to pursue its perceived national interests. However, a country such as PNG may not think it necessary to ...
If gaining colonies had caused moral in Britain to lift, then surely giving them up would risk moral dropping lower than it had been before the acquisition. Other suggestions for Britain taking control, include the national rivalries, which were seemingly prominent around the time. After a diplomatic battle with Germany to gain the spheres of influence, for them to just leave is going to reflect very badly. Certainly such an image would greatly effect Britain’s influence at any future negotiations. Another possibility includes the thought that perhaps the locals were not responding kindly, so the company was failing not because of a lack of trade, but rather a lack of co-operation. Evidence for such a suggestion is provided with Italy being defeated by Abbysinia in 1896. Noticeably, only a year after Britain had taken formal control of the eastern territories, perhaps the Africans were beginning to develop means to resist. Indeed it was resistance to imposed British imperialism in Pretoria, which brought about the Boer War. Britain’s rule in the area being opposed by European settlers of Dutch origin known as the Boers. The Boers had broken away from British rule in Cape Colony, making the Great Trek and founded new colonies which subsequently became the Orange Free State and the Transvaal.
Britain, seemingly only bothered once the area was seen to be of economic value, with the discovery of gold and diamonds. Therefore, an obvious suggestion would be to see Britain as wanting to add Pretoria to their empire because of the economic benefits it would bring. The Utilanders were certainly there to make a profit, being mainly Britons who had streamed into the Pretoria area to participate in the gold mining, made to pay tax yet given no voting rights. Thus we now see a possible reason for Britain’s desire to claim Pretoria, being a question of British pride, as Lord Sailsbury confirms in his report to Queen Victoria: ‘we decline to admit that a small Dutch population shall be allowed in a state which is under Your Majesty’s suzerainty to oppress a much larger number of British subjects’. Suggesting that if they did not take Pretoria it would be a sign of weakness, rather than providing great economic rewards, that the war cost over 200million pounds, highlights this. Again, Germany were in the region, thus highlighting further the influence which national rivalries may have had, providing the evidence for Fieldhouse’s argument: ‘may best be seen as an extension into the periphery of the struggle in Europe’.
The Coursework on Foreign Trade Britain British World
Page TOC o "1-3" h z u Introduction PAGEREF Toc 1837247 h 21. Economic development as a factor of external trade PAGEREF Toc 1837248 h 31. 1. Agriculture PAGEREF Toc 1837249 h 31.2. Manufacturing PAGEREF Toc 1837250 h 51. 3. The service sector PAGEREF Toc 1837251 h 61.4. Transportation PAGEREF Toc 1837252 h 82. Foreign trade PAGEREF Toc 1837253 h 122. 1.The foreign trade turnover, exports, imports ...
Moreover, rather than simply to remove thoughts of weakness on Britain’s behalf, there appear to have been men on the spot, such as Joseph Chamberlain (colonial secretary), who saw the grievances of the Utilanders as an opportunity to finally establish imperial greatness of Britain: ‘Whether the supremacy, which we have claimed so long and so seldom exerted, is to be finally established’ Certainly other men on the spot, such as Cecil Rhodes saw the extension of the British Empire as a paramount. Indeed Rhodes dream was to bring the whole of the ‘uncivilised world’ under British rule. Rhodes position in the economic world, led to him being made prime minister of Cape Colony. In his position as prime minister Rhodes was able to encourage British settlers to work in the Transvaal and demand equal rights. Thus we are able to see the bearing he had on the Boer War and the subsequent claiming of Pretoria. Another possible reason for the Boer War, was to avenge the humiliation of the attempted against coup of the Transvaal government, thus re-establishing the esteem for Britain’s power and influence around the world. Again we can look to Rhodes, who it is believed was actually encouraging Jameson to carry out the raid.
That the Utilanders did not revolt, helps too emphasis the thought that the British government were not acting in the interests of the business men, they did not want protecting! Suggesting that Rhodes motives, were now imperialistic rather than economic. That Rhodes made his fortune from economic interests and that his fortune allowed him to gain influence in the area, highlights how vital economic factors were in establishing Rhodes position. Indeed, the economic interests of the Utilanders provided the excuse for his attempt to extend British Imperialism. Reconsidering the initial question, with regards Egypt we see a combination of national rivalry and economic factors leading the way to the establishment of a colony. Britain was interested in the region for the trade routes, needing to take Egypt to maintain the trade routes, such action only needed because of the fear that France may get it and block off the trade routes. Without the one, there would not have been the other. A similar situation is displayed in both the East and West, if there had not been economic gains than there would be no initial interest and subsequently the national rivalries of Europe could not have been taken into the periphery.
The consequence of the national rivalries being the incoherent and illogical grabbing of land, the Scramble for Africa! In the South, we see economic factors providing fortuitous circumstances for further expansion. Expansion seemingly motivated by a desire for power and influence, rather than simple economic gains. Thus, in general conclusion we are able to state that economic factors were highly significant, however they were not the single cause of the ‘Scramble’, which, in most cases was clearly poly-causal. Confirming D.Thomson’s proposition that it was ‘the combination of novel economic conditions with anarchic political relations’. Without economic factors there would have been no scramble, and without the national rivalries there would also have been no scramble!
