Anglo-French Relations in Egypt 1798-1875

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Anglo-French Relations in Egypt 1798-1875

Mutiat Titilope Oladejo

Abstract

british-french relations egypt

Several canonical works exist on European capitalism in North Africa, especially Egypt. From a revisionist perspective, this work analyses the features of British and French relations in Egypt of the nineteenth century. The definitions of capitalism in scholarly engagements reflects in the narratives of how English and French capital manipulated the political space to map Egypt in the dynamics of international economy. Internal or domestic capitalism was an institutionalized and standardized in the era of Mohammed Ali's modernization policy. Invariably, the paper examines the nexus in the interplay of land, labor and finance that tied Egypt to global capitalism. The terminal period of 1875 marked a period of financial crises that plunged the nation to endless debt burden that further defined its national governance and international relations. With the plethora of secondary sources such as books and journals, this work adopts the historical method.

Keywords: English, French, Egypt, capitalism, governance

Аннотация

Англо-французские отношения в Египте в 1798-1875 гг.

Мутиат Титилопе Оладеджо

В статье исследуются особенности британских и французских отношений в Египте девятнадцатого века. Автор раскрывает, как английский и французский капитал манипулировал политическим пространством, чтобы втягивать страну в мировое капиталистическое хозяйство. В статье рассматривается взаимосвязь во взаимодействии земли, труда и финансов, которая связывала Египет с глобальным капитализмом. Период после 1875 года ознаменовался финансовыми кризисами, которые ввергли страну в бесконечное долговое бремя.

Ключевые слова: Англия, Франция, Египет, капитализм, управление

Introduction

The conception of capitalism is hinged on Michael Merrill's definition that capitalism is not strictly about the market economy ruled by or in the interests of capitalists [1. P. 317]. Therefore, capitalism is not about economics but its political management. The two assumptions that run through the features of capitalism in this work is that: it is in the interests of capitalists not only to prevail but should prevail in any capitalist system and that the notions of governance in it tend to neglect the human factor involved, but for the sake of optimum benefit or profit.

Furtherance to this conception, Scott placed capitalism as an indirect system of governance which is obvious in the way the British and French ruled Egypt [2]. The capitalist governance reflected a system that was institutionalized and shaped by domestic and global market forces. Scott's position reinforced the description Adam Smith construed that:

As every individual... endeavors... to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that is produce may be of greatest value; every individual labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can while he intends only an end which was no part of his intention [3. P. 291-292].

Invariably, market forces are not a lone determinant of the realities of capitalism, its governance is important. Therefore, capitalist development in the context of Anglo-French imperialism in Egypt interfaced the complex and continuous political bargains by the imperial actors and indigenous leadership.

Capitalism in Egyptian history is taken to deeply examine the colonial enterprise in the forms of Anglo-French alliances and rivalries. The effect of imperialism is profound in the activities of Britain and France in Egypt. The impact of which was a factor that recycled the relics of the frontiers of both imperialists. Even after colonization, the modernity impressed created what Said described thus: The great colonial schools, for example, taught generations of the native bourgeoisie important truths about history, science, culture.

Out of that learning process millions grasped the fundamentals of modern life, yet remained subordinate dependents of an authority based elsewhere than in their lives. Since one of the purposes of colonial education was to promote the history of France or Britain, that same education also demoted native history [4. P. 223].

Universality of capitalism has the same meaning but it's episodic because it is existent in the space of nature and time. The interrogation of Anglo-French Capital in Egypt is an embodiment of the structure and features of capitalism. And from a Geographer's perspective, Neil Smith in the book Uneven Development explains how capitalism developed landscape that lumps poverty and wealth in a disillusioned manner [5].

In analyzing ecological capitalism in Egyptian history, Crosby's position fits into the exploration and exploitation of Suez Canal. The role of Britain and France was well explained as it says that;

Wherever Europeans went, immediately began to change the local habitat; their conscious aim was to transform territories into images of what they had left behind. This process was never ending, as a huge number of plants, animals and crops and building methods turned the colony into a new place, complete with new diseases, environmental imbalances and traumatic dislocations for overpowered natives [6. P. 196].

The finance of Suez Canal is a typical reality of how Crosby defined ecological imperialism given the effect it had on the political economy of Egypt.

Basis of French Capital

Egypt was strategic to the geographic boundaries between Africa and Asia. Napoleon Bonaparte's expedition in the late eighteenth century to Egypt was to Advance French Capital. The necessity of French capital was a function of the array of civility that characterized its prominence, being a center of knowledge. Therefore, Jean Baptiste summarized Bonaparte's interest in Egypt's endowment thus: Placed between Africa and Asia, and communicating easily with Europe, Egypt occupies the center of the ancient continent. This country presents only great memories; it is the homeland of the arts and conserves innumerable monuments; its principal temples and the palaces inhabited by its Kings still exist, even though its least ancient edifices had already been built by the time of the Trojan War.

Homer, Lycurgus, Solon, Pythagoras, and Plato all went to Egypt to study the sciences, religion and the laws. Alexander founded an opulent city there, which for a longtime enjoyed commercial supremacy and which witnessed Pompey, Caesar, Mark Antony, and Augustus deciding between them the fate of Rome and that of the entire world. It is therefore proper for this country to attract the attention of illustrious princes who rule the destiny of nations. No considerable power was amassed by any nation, whether in West or in Asia, that did not also turn that nation toward Egypt, which was regarded in some measure as its natural lot [7. P. 1; 4. P. 33].

Napoleon's expedition in 1798 was an embodiment of imperial extension of French culture. In a short while, French military governors organized Cairo and to a certain extent had control of the Aswan dam. But by August 1799, he left Egypt which gave Britain the opportunity to reinforce Ottoman Turkish rule. But the French had impacts especially in Alexandria. There were processes of modernization through France. At least the Mamluks influence was reduced. French conquest of Mamluks created a gap in the leadership of Egypt as it put an end to

Medieval rule which the Mamluks succeeded in exercising to isolate Egypt from Europe. In other words, the departure of French created a vacuum as there was no recognized authority.

By the early nineteenth century, French scientists were on research mission to survey [5. P. 102]. In the beginning of the nineteenth century, the Ottoman had the motives of invasion and occupation like the British and French. The Ottoman Empire with the assistance of British succeeded in warding off Napoleonic forces. That is, there was Ottoman-British alliances against the French. The strands of power among the French, British and Ottomans was conveniently determined by capital flows that either made or mar the consolidation of power [8]. The influence of colonialism determined the direction of finance in the nineteenth century.

Basis of British Interests

British imperialism in Egypt was resilient as it found the nation as a source of power Activities of domination was based on the fact that trade and commerce was a fundamental policy used to shield itself from aggression and yet maintain its colonies by constant reinforcement. British activities in Egypt were diplomatic attempts to shape an economic system they indirectly lack understanding of and at the same time avert French influence. This reflected in Lord Cromer's statement that “we do not govern Egypt, we only govern the governors of Egypt” [9. P. 68; 4. P. 199]. Indirectly, the Governors of Egypt were tamed to adopt British policy Britain had interest in Egypt in different ways.

Britain manifested a system political and financial occupation of Egypt. The actions were justified in the works of John Gallagher and Ronald Robinson that free trade of the imperial order enhanced the conditions of financial interventions in the peripheries. A policy of encouraging free trade with foreign governments was in place in the nineteenth century which enhanced by the Treaty of Balta Liman of 1838 and Treaty of London in 1840. The treaties were negotiated for free trade agreement with the Ottoman Empire in Control of Egypt, to create market for British manufactured goods [10. P. 292-294]. The Treaty of Balta Liman was instrumental to confront Ali's geographical hegemony of Syria. His refusal to the terms of the treaty led to the invitation of Anglo-Turkish Troops in the 1840s. [11. P. 18]. Beirut was the base of aggression to force Ali's control out of Syria. Invariably, economic control of Ali's reign was undermined. British imperial capital circulated and there were nexus of interdependencies that of course favored the governance of Ottomans in Egypt.

Prominent in the features of British imperialism in Egypt is the gentlemanly capitalism aided by the drive for investment in the peripheries. In this category were merchants and bankers that operated through foreign offices in the colonies. In most cases the Gentleman of the nineteenth century was a merchant who had free times for leisure and sports, and only interested in studying administration and leadership [12. P. 38-39].

British interest in Egypt was multifaceted and more important was the Eastern Question which made the fostering of Ottoman interest paramount. An advance from Russia was a threat the British strategy. Capital circulation was a strategy by which the Gentlemen such as Rothschild's and Goshen are invested in Egypt from the 1850s. [11].

Domestic Capitalism and Governance in the Nineteenth Century

Here, the preference to tag the nineteenth century a period of modern occupation was the newness of Ottoman governance systems under the control of Mohamed Ali. There are scholarly arguments that classified Ali an imposition on Egypt nationhood, but its plausibility is of truism because he was an Albanian Ottoman army officer who had diplomatic intentions to take advantage of a nationalist gap to form a dynasty that revolutionized to unprecedented modernization.

Conquest of the Mamluks in the eighteen century was profound in the strength of Egyptian army [13. P. 375-379]. Ali's style of economic governance after assumption of power in 1805 was based on agrarian capitalism. The ideology of the knowledge system developed was profound in the principles of Egyptology, although inspired by French scientist' but it created a sense of the past civilization [14. P. 58]. Between agriculture and military management, the revenue acquired from land was used to finance the military. Each administrator referred to as Multazim was assigned to a land where the peasants worked. Ability of the Multazim to remit tax guaranteed continued occupation of land and failure to remit led to confiscation. Of the offer to retain land, members of Ali's administration were guaranteed land by which the peasants were made to produce for exports [15. P. 195-228]. The understanding of Ali's governance was quite modern and the currents of development in Europe was a factor that led to the type of restructuring that focused on agricultural development.

Over reliance of European imports was a drain on national capital and it became imperative to actualize the growth of domestic industrial sector. Factories were built to produce textiles and glass as well as machineries to enhance tertiary production [11. P. 15; 13. P. 39-392]. The campaign for industrialization was matched with protectionist policies to ensure domestic consumption of Egyptian goods. However, the international trade stifled the protection which was also a function of European influence to mar domestic industrialization.

Circulation of capital from domestic industrialization financed Egypt's regional power to launch the campaign to capture Makkah and Medina from Wahabis among other missions of expansion [11. P. 16]. Certainty Ali's eldest son, Ibrahim was involved in creating the hegemony of Ottoman governance which succeeded in Hijaz, Sudan and Syria in 1833.

The activities of Porte undermined the geographical influence of Ali's reign because international trade policy of Egypt was a disadvantage to Britain. The Treaty of Balta Liman limited the monopolies of Ali's governance. The treaty was implement British right to purchase and merchandise with considerable tariff which proved to confront the growth of domestic Egyptian economy [11. P. 39].

It was amidst internal wrangling among the Mamluks, Albanians and Turkish forces that Mohamed Ali capitalized on taxation but was cautious of provoking British. British diplomacy was vital to his expansionist practices. Yet, France also adopted diplomatic advances to court Ali in the first quarter of the nineteenth century.

The policies of plying the steamship in the region around Egypt and Syria created complicated trends in the politics of capitalism between Ali and British- French rivalry. Ali was interested in the development of Suez route. Britain was disinterested in European rivalry. This manifested in 1834 when an English manager referred to as Waghorn organized steam movement to transports goods and passengers between Alexandria and Suez [14. P. 43]. It was obvious that Ali's government was sensitive to British capital and was willing to accede to forthcoming support.

French capitalism was on the other hand persuasively redirecting Ali's governance in favor of its interests. Between 1830s to 1840s, Ali's government was entangled in the web of European rivalries that combined British-Austrian-Russian- Turkish naval squadron to tackle French influence and advisory role in the modernization policy.

Ali's diplomacy was bent to accept British terms that allowed the hoisting of Turkish flag in Alexandria in January 1841 and on February 4, Mohammed Ali was granted life leadership of hereditary Pasha of Egypt [14. P. 47]. To Britain, 1841 marked a fulfillment of the policy statement that upheld the principles of capitalism and Anglo-Turkish alliance. Also there was free passage of British merchandise to India.

Before the death of Mohamed Ali in 1845, the workings of internal capitalism in four decades showed a remarkable increase that justified the type of economies that utilized land and labor. The table below depicts the comparison of economic indexes from 1805 to 1845.

Table 1Economic Features in Egypt