NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
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. 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. 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 Alaska-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. 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 Leopold's 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 t...
Free research essays on topics related to: square miles, factors influencing, economic factors, suez canal, britain and france
Research essay sample on Britain And France Suez Canal
