British Imperialists' Motives in Scramble for Africa - Essay Example

? British Imperialists' Motives in Scramble for Africa In general terms, imperialism can be defined as the domination of one group over another (Baumgart, 1982, pp. 1). However,the etymological roots of the word implies an empire; hence, broadly speaking, any imperial rule can be regarded within the category of imperialism. Nevertheless, imperialism is a many-faceted phenomenon; which had political, economic and social roots. Indeed, Socialist and Marxist critics narrowed its definition down and applied the term to a certain stage of capitalist societies when discussing social and and economic conditions (p.2).Thus, any attempt to give an account on the British imperialism must highlight the underlying political, social and economic motives. As Robinson and Gallagher (1961, pp. 19) stated “a first task in analysing the late-Victorians’ share in the partition [of Africa] is to understand the motives of the ministers who directed it, and the study of official thinking is indispensable to this”. The aim of this paper is to scrutinize British Imperialists' motives in scramble for Africa in three respects: political, economic and social. The Scramble for Africa begun in the last quarter of the 18th century and lasted until the WWI. While the decline of the Ottoman influence created a power vacuum in the region, the colonial powers of Europe, following the lead of the British imperialists, have begun to fill that void. In Africa and The Victorians, Robinson and Gallagher examined the relationship between the partition of Africa and British decision-making process. According to them, the Victorians' political relations with Africa changed radically after 1882. Lord Salisbury stated that: “I do not exactly know the cause of this sudden revolution. But there it is” (Quoted by Robinson and Gallagher, 1961, pp. 17). Late-Victorians were more eager to dominate Africa than their predecessors and the British forces invaded Egypt in 1882. The collapse of weak African governments may also have played role in the partition. In fact, British divide and rule policy was also an important factor in the national unrest and disorder in Africa. However, Robinson and Gallagher focused on the British policy-making as the underlying political factor. In fact, according to them, as also indicated by Schumpeter, “The possibility of official thinking in itself was a cause of late-Victorian imperialism” (pp. 21). Indeed, England had a long tradition of imperial rule and the that policy tradition inherited from Pitt and Channing to Palmerston and Clarendon (p.22). They also highlight ed (pp.22-23) policy makers' ignorance of Africa, as the partition was made “at house parties” without any public interest or participation. In fact, the interests, and thus motives, of policy makers were different in each country. In Egypt, it was due to the collapse of the Kedive regime. In east and west Africa, British interests were related to the Egyptian occupation. In Southern Africa, “imeperial intervention against the Transvaal was designed above all to uphold and restore the imperial influence which economic growth, Africaner nationalism and the Jameson fiasco had overthrown” (pp. 463). In Rhodesias and Nyasaland, the motives were merged with imperial aims in Cape colonial expansion and balance the rise of the Transvaal (pp. 463). However, Robinson and Gallagher stressed that commercial or financial concerns were rather inconsequential in ministers' decision on which territories should be occupied (pp. 463). For Robinson and Gallagher, ministers' private calculations played the most important part in decision-making process and again for different reasons. However, the security concerns seem to have prevailed. In Rhodesia, it was the safety of the routes to the East, in Southern Africa it was the preservation of the colonial rule, while the safety of the routes to India was the prominent imperative (pp. 464). In fact, Robinson and Gallagher (1961, pp. 464) noted that “if the papers left by the policy-makers are to be believed, they moved to Africa, not to build a new African empire, but to protect the old empire in India”. They argued that supreme interest of the Victorian policy lied in the Middle East and Asia, they engaged with Africa in order to protect their interests in the Middle East and Asia, especially in India. At the end of their analysis Robinson and Gallagher (1961, pp. 465) reformulate their question, it was not explaining the motives of a new empire in Africa but they asked: “Why could the late-Victorians after the late-Victorians no longer rely upon influence to protect traditional interests?”.Their answer is short and simple: the intensification of nationalism and security concerns. While Robinson and Gallagher focused on the political facade of imperialism; Winfried Baumgart, highlighted economic and social conditions. According to Baumgart, imperialism is not mono-causal, it has multiple causes and motives like the Great Power rivalry, nationalism, social-Darwinism, political-territorial, economic and social. He also criticized John A. Hobson's and Lenin's economic theory of imperialism. According to John A. Hobson (1902, pp. 35), who influenced Lenin and his famous work Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism, colonies were important for selling goods and also as as sources of raw materials. However, he notes that “while Great Britain's dependence on her Empire for trade was stationary, the dependence of her upon her for trade was rapidly diminishing”. Cutting the cord between foreign trade and colonialism, he concluded that colonial, financial investments and the drive abroad of surplus capital were the main motives of imperialism. Nevertheless, as Baumgart (1982, p. 109) argued his conclusion was wrong since British overseas investments in the newly acquired tropical colonies were minimal. Baumgart also stated that Lenin did the same mistake by following Hobson's model. Lenin (1916), attributed imperialism to the highest stage of capitalism, although he was aware that the imperialism existed before capitalism. But according to him (1916), “Even the capitalist colonial policy of previous stages of capitalism is essentially different from the colonial policy of finance capital”. Baumgart also highlighted the social-economic theory of Imperialism, which was still in its infancy. He traced this theory back to its origins, to the first half of the 19th century and Bentham school which correlated the methods of production of industrial capitalism and overseas colonization. Baumgart also pointed out a contradiction in Robinson and Gallagher's account. He (1982, pp. 138) argued that “free trade imperialism” is a contradiction, since “a foreign-trade policy based on laissez-faire must in essence be anti-imperialist”. According to Baumgart (1982, pp. 165), Social imperialism became effective in Britain as a combination of social reform and expansive imperialism. However, it was not just the empire for the empire's sake. He also notes that since there was already a British Empire in 1980, the central motive was to keep it against competition of colonial empires. For Baumgart, social imperialism was a multifaceted phenomenon since its advocates were from all different political parties. Its main course was the “maintenance and consolidation of the British Empire and a comprehensive social reform” (pp. 166). However, its supporters were divided into two groups between those support protectionism and free trade. Nevertheless, for Baumgart, the main reason of British imperialism was the changing balance of power and the decline of British colonial, economic and industrial monopoly after 1870. Under Disraeli's leadership, imperialism was sought together with social reform (pp. 168). In the final analysis Baumgart (1982, pp. 179) concludes that “the division of Africa, which was the most spectacular event in the general movement of expansion after 1880, appears to be particularly appropriate example if one is in search of the motives for this expansion. The existence of a British and a French colonial empire was the basic element of post-1880 imperialism when stressing the factor of continuity in European overseas expansion. Another set of preconditions was the existence of trading stations and naval bases on the coasts; the missionary endeavours and geographical exploration; and finally, the technological revolution”. According to him, these were the independent motive forces. Baumgart also stressed the complexity of phenomenon of imperialism and the inadequacy of monocausal approach. Meanwhile, according to H.L. Wesseling (1996) British imperialism was a unique case, which was not purely political (like French case) or economic (German Case). He argued that Britain's overseas expansion involved the whole society (pp. 33). Wesseling, adopted rather a different approach and focused on international power dynamics. He criticized Gallagher and Robinson, and stated that it was not a change in British policy but “an effect of the changed international situation”. He examined the case of Egypt and concluded that the events of 9 September 1881 stemmed from the power vacuum in Egypt as Ottoman Empire's power declined and Khedive's government disintegrated (pp. 51). He also argued that the Egyptian question was tied to the Anglo-French rivalry (pp. 67). Indeed, for him, Britain's decision to invade Egypt was rather reluctant and unplanned, aimed just to keep French away. A.G. Hopkins made similar arguments in regard to the British occupation of Egypt, which triggered the partition. He noted that Great Britain had already established its financial and commercial domination before the invasion. Even before 1873, “Commercial expansion was accompanied by railway and harbour construction, and by the installation of industrial machinery - all of which gave employment to British manufacturers and personnel. Export development was financed largely by external borrowing, and in this activity, too, British investors were dominant” (pp. 379). Besides economic approach, he also criticized Gallagher and Robinson's approach on the basis that they adhered to the official account of events very strictly. He also refuted the motive of protecting interests in India. Hopkins stated that the motive for occupation lied in France and Egypt. To sum up, different historians illuminated the different facets of the complex phenomenon of British Imperialism with regard to the Scramble for Africa. While the political account of Robinson and Gallagher remained closer to the official and domestic accounts, Marxist versions stressed the foreign-trade and financial investments as major motives. The social-economic theory of imperialism intertwined the imperialism programme with the social reform. Meanwhile, new interpretations illustrated the importance of international realpolitik and the balance of power upon the British imperialism at the end of the 19th century. The author of this essay agrees with the internationalist versions since imperialism is primarily an international phenomenon and cannot be understood without resorting to the analysis of complex and fierce power plays among the colonial actors .Thus, the motives of British imperialism in scramble for Africa can be grasped within its international context, particularly with reference to the rivalry with France and Russia (e.g. the Eastern question). REFERENCES: Baumgart, Winfried (1982). Imperialism: The Idea and Reality of British and French Colonial Expansion,1880-1914. Trans. Winfried Baumgart. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hobson, J.A. (1902). Imperialism: a Study. New York: Cosimo (2005). Lenin, Vladimir Ilyich. (1916). Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch06.htm. Date accessed 14/3/2011. Hopkins, A.G. (1986). “The Victorians and Africa: A Reconsideration of the Occupation of Egypt, 1882”. The Journal of African History, Vol. 27, No. 2, Special Issue in Honour of J.D.Fage, pp. 363-391. Robinson, Ronald and John Gallagher (1961). Africa and the Victorians. London: Macmillan. Wesseling, H.L. (1996). Divide and Rule: The Partition of Africa, 1880-1914. Trans. Arnold J. Pomerans. Westport: Praeger Publishers. Read More