What were the major historical factors explaining ‘the scramble for Africa’? In order to approach this essay question, my analysis will be divided into two parts.
The first section will define what the scramble for Africa means. In the subsequent sections, I will refer to the case history of colonization of Africa by some European countries, the motives behind their actions and its consequences on Africa particularly.The scramble for Africa was described as the golden period of European expansionism in the 19th century. It was an age in which the continents of Africa, Asia and Middle Eastern states were brought under the control of European powers following the Berlin Conference from 1884 to 1885. Hobsbawm (1987: 56) describes the period as an era of empire since it evolved out a new type of imperialism which is based on an ancient notion referred to as the age of “emperors”.It was a period in which European superpower nations such as Great Britain, France, and Portugal, to mention but a few, emerged economically strong following rapid industrialisation, with the objective to pursue national interests overseas.
The scramble for Africa started when the benefit of industrial revolution gave rise to unprecedented expansion in the production of goods and services, which needed to be exported to outlandish markets. For the partition and the haggling that went it did not come out of the blue.It was orchestrated by a combination of factors and conditions under which European powers faced in their metropolitan countries at the time. Having lost their North and South American colonies, Australasia and the Pacific rim interests at the turn of the century, the European powers turned their searchlight to Africa, Asia and the Middle East for new markets by consolidating previously held trading posts and sea route communications and grabbing new territories along the way; hence the scramble for Africa.
The partition has been described as one of the most important turning points in the history of the relationships between the “Haves” which signifies the industrialised European powers versus the “Have-nots” that represents the tropical Africa and the countries of Asia and the Middle East (Padmore, 1972: 7). According to Padmore (1972: 162) “… colonial policy was giving birth to by rich states where the flow of money is abundant. As well as the constant increasing of capital, the manufacturing sector is becoming an independent body as most of the population works within the industry.Exportation is almost pivotal …” Still, Jules Ferry, “who can fittingly be described as the father of French Imperialism, whilst addressing the Chamber of Deputies in 1885, summed up the need for colonies as follows: Is it not clear that the great States of modern Europe, the moment their industrial power is found, are confronted with an immense and difficult problem, which is the basis of industrial life, the very condition of existence – the question of markets? … Can we say that this colonial policy is a luxury for modern nations?Not at all … this policy is for all of us, a necessity, the market itself” (p.
161). Ferry’s encapsulation of what the partition of Africa meant for the French and his fellow European powers are quite instructive here. Similarly, continental echoes of the partition policy were heard in ascending order. In the Island of Great Britain, Mr Joseph Chamberlain, who was a mayor in Birmingham as well as previously a proponent of liberal notions before he became part of the zealous winners of Toryism, accepted that “a forward policy of colonial expansion in Africa was now the order of the day”.He stated that: “it is the duty of the State to foster the trade and obtain markets for its manufactures” (p. 164).
In 1855 at Germany when Bismarck was addressing the Reichstag, he asserted that: “The goal of Germany’s foreign policy was to be economically independent. Colonies would provide new markets for German industries, the expansion of trade, and new field for German activity, civilisation and capital … Consider what it would mean if part of the cotton and coffee which we must export could be grown in German territory overseas”. Padmore, pp. 164 -165).
As argued by H. L. Wessseling (1996: 366), the historical interpretation of the partition was based on imperialism due to entrepreneurship and therefore, “primarily a struggle for profitable markets of investment”. He opined that aside from the economic motives upon which the partition was based, there was indeed, consideration of strategic and political motives as well.
From his perspective, the political elites in Britain had no plan for Africa; instead they were promoting their own preferences in Asia which was aimed at defending the crucial stake in both India and the East (p. 366). Furthermore, the development of transportation was paramount to the Middle East war because it promoted the development of Africa transportation network which was used to transport “bulky supplies” from Congo Rivers, through Juba and Egypt (Hargreaves, 1988: 54). Certainly, there was no question of the strategic and commercial importance f Africa, Asia and the Middle Eastern territories to the Allied Powers prior to, and during, the Second World War.
“acquiring a colony which further lead to an empire was significant factor in proving the status and importance of a country” (Chamberlain, 1985: p. 3). Whilst huge merit pertains in this argument, there is no doubt the policy of imperialism in Africa, Asia and the Middle East is different from one nation to another, from time to time, and within the confines of a territory to another (Wesseling, 1996, p. 366).It is apparent that the “economic motives such as the protection and encouragement of trade and industry did indeed play a part … so also did such financial motives as safeguarding of loans and investments, such political motives as strategic advantage, national ambition, electoral appeal, such as ideological motives as bearing the white man’s burden, and many more” (p. 366).
The method used by the European powers in gaining foothold into the African territories was generally regarded as underhand. Both Africans and Indians only began to exist at the point they were “discovered” (Liebenow, 1986: p. 4). Accordingly, “treaties of friendship negotiated … with local political personages, or evidence of conversations alone, became converted in the 19th century diplomatic scramble into European deeds of ownership to the land, the people, and all their resources” (p. 14). Following the inordinate ways used in slicing up African territories, the Berlin conference recognised Leopold’s claims over Congo, and the various spheres of British, French and German influence in the East, West and South Africa respectively.
In order to consolidate their positions, England, France and Germany first resorted to the use of Chartered Companies, joint stock organisations with tremendous financial resources at their disposal, and backed by the armed forces of their states. These monopoly concerns were the ones which laid the basis of government in the territories which were later officially declared as colonies and protectorates (Padmore, p. 168 – 169).Germany acquired South West Africa in 1885, along with Cameroons and Togoland in 1885. Both England and France were the largest shareholder in Africa as a whole; for example, While England colonised Gambia, Sierra Leone, Ghana, Nigeria, British Somaliland, Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Swaziland and Basutoland, and the Union of South Africa; France, colonised Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco, Senegal, Congo, Dahomey, Ivory Coast and the large Island of Madagascar (P.
68 - 169). “Portugal, one of the oldest colonial Powers in the world got Angola and Guinea on the West Coast, Mozambique on the East, and the cocoa island of Sao Tome and Principe in the Gulf of Guinea” (p. 169). “Italy, having met military disaster in her early imperialist attempt at Abyssinia in 1896, as well as diplomatic defeat by France over Tunisia, acquired Tripoli in the north, Eritrea on the East Coast and Italian Somaliland on the Indian Ocean” (p. 169).It has commonly been argued that the approach used by the European powers in running their territories exacerbated local anger against colonial rule.
Many ethnic groups with no shared interests were lumped together, thus creating confusion and rivalries, making the present day African countries extremely difficult to govern. Whilst Britain employed a mixture of direct (India) and indirect rule (Africa and others), using recognised local people to govern. The French and others tended to adopt a more direct approach.For example, the French and the Portuguese believed in the policy of integration or assimilation.
This policy extended French citizenship to trained Africans whilst providing a token of autonomy to local representatives who, subsequently, were co-opted into French Parliament. While Africa provided the best example for studying the development and expansion of European Imperialisms in their quest for markets, sources of raw materials and spheres for investing capital, this overseas projection of European capitalism was not confined to the Dark Continent.Indeed, scramble incursions were made into Asia and other parts of New World. The chief amongst these was India, often referred to as the “Jewel in the Crown” because “it differed from all other colonies of occupation in its vastly greater size and population, reaching 200 millions in 1860s” (Fieldhouse, 1965/6: 271).
According to Fieldhouse, India presented Britain with political and defence capabilities… therefore, “its resources were harnessed to support a great military empire before the British arrived” (Fieldhouse: p. 271).As discussed in this essay, the European colonisation of Africa, Asia and the Middle East is of a paramount importance to the 19th century period, also known as “the modern age”. The technological superiority of the European powers and the age of industrial revolution led the West in believing that they were destined, as a matter of right, to govern people elsewhere on the globe. Unfortunately, colonisation of Africa had a detrimental effect to its economic, social and political conditions (Wesseling, 1996: 372).
“The colonisation of Africa which should have led to an increase in such conditions hardly had a positive effect.It just let to the speeding up of modernisation” (p. 372). This led to the integration of Africa and the rest of the New World into the capitalist economy. If we have to look for any tangible benefit of colonialism, this has to be seen in the context of the multiplicity of states that sprung up in Africa with concomitant ethnic conflicts and political instabilities. The false notion of sovereignty accorded to African states and recognised by the United Nations, clearly shows that majority of these states are weak and unable to acquire democratic legitimacies in their various territories.
