The Scramble for Africa was the process in which unclaimed parts of the continent were carved up into

European colonies. Africa was seen as an open frontier by Europeans in the 19th century, with each power looking to stake their claim. By the turn of the century, only two African nations i.e. the Republic of Liberia and Ethiopia were not under direct European rule.1 In an attempt to avoid the possibility of an open conflict amongst rival nations, the Berlin Conference (November 1884-February 1885), which was convened, by German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, and every major European power including the U.S. had given international acknowledgement to a situation that already existed.2 It was to lay down rules to govern the race for colonies. Therefore this essay will attempt to explain whether the statement without the occupation of Egypt, there is no reason to suppose that any international scrambles for Africa, either west or east, would have begun when they did. is valid on the scramble and partition of Africa in the later 19th century. The statement above suggests that British occupation of Egypt in 1882 was the event, which set off the scramble for and later partitioning of Africa. When the British entered Egypt on there own the Scramble began; and as long as they stayed in Cairo, it continued until there was no more of Africa left to divide.3 The authors R. Robinson and J. Gallagher, of Africa and the Victorians, propagated this notion. They claimed the collapse of the Khedival regime, due to the inability to repay the foreign debt which had risen from 3 million to nearly 100 million by 1876 based on Ismail's modernization policy, and the growing threat of Egyptian nationalist feelings had caused the British to
1 2

Microsoft Encarta 2006. 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved

CROWDER, M. West Africa and Colonial Rule (London: Hutchinson, 1970) pp.62-63 McEWAN, P.J.M. Nineteenth-Century Africa (Oxford University Press, London, 1968) p.259

intervene militarily and establish formal control there, in order to protect both their creditors and the Suez Canal Zone.4 The Suez Canal built by the French and financed by British (1869), was main line of communication to India and the Far East for the British. Although both the French and British had agreed on a joint-intervention in Egypt, it was the British who acted alone since the French parliamentary refused to sanction such military intervention. They also argued that this intervention initiated a chain reaction, in that rival powers began to acquire colonies and establish protectorates on the continent. For e.g. within months of the occupation, French parliament ratified treaties made by de Brazza in the Congo in 1882 and King Leopold II of Belgium likewise set up paper protectorates to secure his interests along the Congo region. On the other hand, Sanderson argues that Robinson and Gallaghers argument have been proven wrong in its single-minded emphasis on the British occupation of Egypt in 1882 as the starting pistol for the scramble of the African continent.5 There are other explanations, factors and events, which undoubtedly played an important part in the determining the scramble for and later partition of the African continent. One of such was the phase of New Imperialism, which had occurred around the 1870s. New Imperialism was characterized by a sudden change from previous European policies. In the years after 1870, Western nations came to control over 10 million square miles and 150 million people 1/5 of the world's land area. Late 19th imperialist were not interesting in settling in the colonies in great numbers, or alternately in establishing
4 5

KLEIN, M. Perspectives on the African Past (Little, Brown and Company, Canada, 1972) p.326 SANDERSON, G.E. & ROLAND, O. The Cambridge History of Africa Vol.6 c.1870-1905 (Cambridge University Press, London, 1985) pp.692-693

trading posts. Rather, they sought to transform the entire economy and culture of a dominated area for economic reasons; and they were willing to establish political and legal control to do so.6 Under this new imperialism, competition grew increasingly hostile as European powers fought over areas of dubious areas of economic value in Africa and the Pacific. The economic factor was also a part of the reason for European powers to appropriate the entire African continent. In other words the partition occurred at a time when the economic outlook was particularly gloomy. According to Boahen, European powers sought the acquisition of colonies whose markets that she could dominate, since they were unable to locally absorb the surplus manufactured goods caused by the Industrial revolution.7 New imperialism of 1870-1915, according to Lenin was the highest stage of capitalism. He argues that European powers wanted to secure colonies for surplus capital. According to the accumulation theory by Hobson-Marx-Lenin, the accumulation of capital in Western Europe with no scope for investment opportunities at home drove financial interests to seek more profitable investments in less-developed lands with lower labor costs, unexploited raw materials and little competition.8 However, this view was criticized by Western scholars on the grounds that very little surplus capital went to Africa, but instead was invested in other parts of Europe, North America and Latin America (Brazil).9

6 7

http://www.eveWW1.html BOAHEN, A. ADU Topics in West African History (Western Printing Services Ltd, Bristol, Great Britain, 1966) p.129 8 http://www.w3.org/New Imperialism- Biocrawler.html 9 BOAHEN, A. ADU Topics in West African History (Western Printing Services Ltd, Bristol, Great Britain, 1966) pp.129-130

The other factor involved in the new imperialism, which both Robinson and Gallagher deny, is that of Nationalism. Nationalism gave rise to the partition in Africa during the latter 19th century, because colonies became the symbol of a nations greatness or power just as atomic bombs, sputniks and moon satellites. The more colonies a nationstate had, the more powerful she was considered to be. According to Crowder, in France the political pressures for expansion were very strong. Expansion was seen as a means to compensate for the loss of the Alsace-Lorraine province and humiliating defeat at the hands of the Germans in 1871.10 Africa was regarded, as a hopeful starting point for a French recovery due to its long-standing connections with France and it was largely unclaimed. This national self-respect was initiated when explorer de Brazza drew attention to the new and fertile lands. There he had evoked the national emblems in the heart of Africa. However, with British occupation of Egypt in 1882 the French government, within a few months, with not much alternative accepted the Makoko treaties, which laid claim to the whole Congo basin and also set in motion the program of annexation along the Nigerian coast.11 The ratification of the treaties had therefore cited King Leopolds II of the Belgians ambitions of establishing a colony in the Congo for his country and more importantly directly affected Portugal, since she also laid claim to the whole Congo Region. 12 As a result, this in turn led the British government to join the race for the Nigerian territory. In earnest the scramble for West and West-Central had thus begun.

10 11

CROWDER, M. West Africa and Colonial Rule (London: Hutchinson, 1970) pp.60-61 OLIVER, R. & ATMORE, A. Africa since 1800 (Cambridge University Press, 1967) p.109 12 McEWAN, P.J.M. Nineteenth-Century Africa (Oxford University Press, London, 1968) p.282

Another factor of new imperialism, which led to the scramble, and later partition of Africa is that of prestige. According to Sanderson, prestige had played its part in German Chancellor, Bismarcks colonialism. Bismarck had moved from rather hazy projects of informal trading spheres to outright territorial annexation largely in reaction to the affront to German self-esteem.13 By the 1870s the new Germany was able to rival France militarily and Britain industrially. This new nation-state was looking for a place in the imperial sun. She needed an overseas empire to keep her new world power status. Germany from 1883-85 had declared four protectorates in East Africa and SouthWest Africa. Bismarcks scramble for colonies was just a simple assertion of her new position among the world powers as well as to dominate the international politics of the European powers and to satisfy the appeals of the Chambers of Commerce, merchants and bankers As a result of this German presence, both Britain and France regarded her as a threat to their own West African interest, since they feared that any forward move by her might lead to the exclusion of their trading firms from the unclaimed markets of Africa. Thus the Berlin Conference was convened to settle claims to colonies.14 By end of the 19th century, various parts of the world were far more linked to Europe and each other than they had ever been before. The Scramble and later partitioning of Africa in the latter 19th century culminated as a result of intensified rivalry amongst European powers for the new territories successfully discovered by its explorers within the interior. These parts had remained relatively untouched by Europeans during

13

SANDERSON, G.E. & ROLAND, O. The Cambridge History of Africa Vol.6 c.1870-1905 (Cambridge University Press, London, 1985) p.138 14 OLIVER, R. & ATMORE, A. Africa since 1800 (Cambridge University Press, 1967) pp.110-111

the mid-19th century, since they were prevented by the high death rates from Malaria and Yellow Fever and as a result settled in selected mainly along the coast. With the technological advances made in transportation such as the steamboat, firearms like the gattling and communication in terms of railways due to the Industrial Revolution, these Western Europeans were therefore able to penetrate and spend longer periods in the tropics free of illness. Trade was no longer exclusively a coastal trade; European trade began to penetrate the interior. However, with such expansion each power feared that its rivals would keep the trade of their colonies to themselves by enclosing them with tariff barriers instead of promoting free trade and proclaiming protectorates; so in order to reserve the largest possible sphere for its own future activities, each power thus felt compelled to enter the scramble. 15 On the other had another explanation to rebuttal the Egyptian-occupation statement for the scramble for and later partitioning of Africa can be based on the activities surrounding the Niger Delta. According the flash point theory, the initiation of protectorates created the pivotal moments for the scramble for colonies on the continent. According to Crowder, French traders had interested themselves in the Niger Delta, which hitherto had been an exclusive preserve for the British these French trade saw the Niger as a highway to commerce with the interior.16In order to secure their commercial advantage, the French re-established in January 1882 a protectorate at Porto-

15 16

OLIVER, R. & ATMORE, A. Africa since 1800 (Cambridge University Press, 1967) p.108 CROWDER, M. West Africa and Colonial Rule (London: Hutchinson, 1970) p.53

Norvo. As a result, this had alarmed the British and further intensified the rivalry between them. Therefore, in the second region of Africa the scramble had already begun.17 In conclusion, the statement on the occupation of Egypt is not totally valid on the scramble and later partition of Africa in the later 19th century since it focused on one European power and the political aspects of the event instead of looking at the other factors such as New Imperialism like nationalism and prestige, economics and the establishment of protectorates as a means for the scramble of the African continent.

17

McEWAN, P.J.M. Nineteenth-Century Africa (Oxford University Press, London, 1968) pp.276-279