Transcript Egypt and the Sudan (2)

Egypt and the Sudan
By Lizzie, Phoebe and Lily
Short Summary of events…
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Turkish monopolised the country and had influence over it and its rule.
Mehmet Ali embarked upon a campaign of conquest and took much of the (Egyptian) Sudan and
Syria. The Sudan had risen under their own leader, the Mahdi, and was threatening the security of
Egypt.
The Egyptians resented this and therefore by the 19th Century, the Ottoman Empire was in decline.
The British feared Ottoman possessions in North Africa would fall into the hands of other European
powers (creating an unbalance of power in Europe, which was what every country feared)
The French, therefore, subtly persuaded Egypt to break away from the Ottoman Empire and
become independent.
French investment in the building of the Suez Canal led to large British investments.
Egyptian foreign debt increased from £3,000,000 to £100,000,000 in 1863 to 1879, thus resulting in
Egypt’s inevitable debt crisis and a potential economic collapse.
The Egyptian ruler Ismail (nephew of Mehmet Ali) requested for the British and French
governments to provide advice economically, who then sent Stephen Cave (British lawyer and
conservative member) to investigate the current economic situation.
1878 - Anglo-French plan was created to give the Anglo-French dual control of Egypt over finances
(1878 – 1882)
1882 – Egyptian Nationalist Movement under Arabi Pasha was on the verge of taking power. This
caused all law and order to collapse.
The British government took formal control of Egypt due to the riot in Alexandria. Tewfik was left in
control (similar to that of man on the spot), and the British ended Anglo-French control.
Lord Baring (a banker) was left in control. The French were outraged by this and led to bitter
accusations made amongst both countries.
Applying theories…
Firstly, the motivation behind the building of the canal was the ‘bondholder’s war’, which
coincided with trading interests following investment in the canal. This was Hobson’s
theory. He believed that “colonisation was good as long as it benefited opportunity and
employment”. He also said “individual capitalists had given undue importance to capital
expansion and investment…”
Lord Churchill 1884: “It was bonds and bond holders and no other power which diverted Mr
Gladstone and which drew the British fleet to Alexandria.”
This also fits with Cain & Hopkins’ argument “this continuity is based on the ‘monied men’
– commercial, professional and landed elites of the South East” which for this event shows
the ‘monied men’ (the Rothschild’s), also later joined by Gladstone’s, in their investment in
the canal (37% of portfolio).
The investment in shares in the Suez Canal needed to be protected and loans repaid, which
is why dual control over Egypt was needed in 1876. This created Egyptian nationalism due
to anger over the way both the British and the French dealt with the economy, which
created unemployment and starvation.
This, therefore, in fact faults Robson & Gallagher’s theory of the “economic, social, and
ideological explanations are simply follow-ons after the event in order to justify this new
Imperialism”, as the British and French provoked nationalism by imposing dual control as
opposed to the nationalism coming from within Egypt itself. The purpose of the AngloFrench dual control over Egypt was to better Egypt’s financial stability, thus disproving that
“economic… explanations are simply follow-ons after the event…”, because it was in fact
the economic situation that created Egyptian nationalism initially.
Britain did not want to go into Egypt, however, they became fearful of the idea that France
may take over the Suez Canal. The Suez Canal became important and dominant in trade
routes and therefore could not remain indifferent to the fate of Egypt. Britain getting
involved in Egypt and the Suez Canal ensured that the balance in power in Europe was kept.
This proves the theory of European rivalry and power. “Increasing emphasis was placed on
determining the power of a European country by the size of its Empire. Empire itself
became equated with the size of its power.”
The canal did have trading importance, however, Britain initially opposed the building of the
Suez Canal which inevitably caused scepticism surrounding Britain’s later involvement in the
canal. Gladstone later changed his mind by bringing ships into Alexandria to protect the
canal.
This proves Cain & Hopkins’ theory because it demonstrates a desire (perhaps nonpolitical) to protect the canal which was driven by investors instead. Cain & Hopkins
believed that since the ‘monied men’ invested heavily abroad, that “they exerted pressure
on the British government to protect their interests whenever threatened by European
rivals and/or nationalist movements.”
Britain’s share in the Suez Canal, with the help of the Rothschild family with 44%. However,
this share still didn’t give Britain control over the canal itself. This caused problems which
resulted in the development of ‘national interests’ (protecting the investment in the canal).
The canal was worth much more in terms of shares and investment. This, inevitably, made
Egypt the case of financial imperialism – capitalists invested in foreign countries and then
demanded the protection of their government. The government intervened because they
believed the Suez Canal was in immediate danger due to financial imperialism.
Cain & Hopkins’ (‘monied men’) theory also links with Hobson’s (capitalism needed
protection rather than competition) as they proved that the whole imperialist movement
had the foundations of finance and economy; the interest of Britain in the Suez Canal from,
in this case, the bankers and the capitalists who financed the venture itself.
Lenin’s theory isn’t relevant in terms of Egypt and Sudan because at this time monopolies
weren’t significant and did not play a role in terms of decision making in government. His
theory of Marxism was an attempt to explain his own ideology, rather than explain the
Scramble itself.