Responding to a recent Harry's Place post, I had cause to cite Evelyn Baring's (Lord Cromer's) apologia for the British occupation of Egypt in 1882. It's well worth reading in full. Lest I appear to be making too glib a comparison (perish the thought!) between the New Imperialism of the 1880s and events today, I should point out that Cromer's criticisms of the Khedive's administration were accurate; that he himself (British proconsul from 1883 to 1907) was an unusually competent administrator whose reforms undoubtedly benefited Egyptians of all classes; and that laced with all the cynicism of the Pax Britannica was a sincere wish to better the lot of the Egyptians, a wish that was often translated into action. Whether or not one approves of all this depends on whether one approves of imperialism - still, to my mind, a debate worth having. But my main point was that Britain's story in Egypt was a long one. As I said over at HP:
"Gladstone's government intervened on the strict understanding that the occupation would be a temporary affair, until all the necessary conditions of good government were restored; indeed, this transitional period was supposed to be measured in months rather than years. Sixty-six times during the next 40 years they indicated that withdrawal was imminent.
British troops were in Egypt until 1952."
Posted by Alan Allport at December 6, 2004 06:16 AMReally struck by that first sentence:
Egypt may now almost be said to form part of Europe.
Sounds a lot like look how well things have turned out.
The debate over imperialism is worthwhile, as historical phenomenon or as policy. Reminds me of the juvenile rants against Christianity: I always have to say, yes, but what would you have preferred in it's place?
Posted by: Bobby Farouk at December 6, 2004 08:35 AMIn fairness, I think what Cromer meant was: like it or not, Egypt is part of the European world; it can't be ignored as a peripheral satellite.
Posted by: Alan Allport at December 6, 2004 08:38 AMThat clears up the rest of the first paragraph; I couldn't really tell if he was saying it was good or bad. The point was, I see, to demonstrate how necessary it had been.
He doesn't discuss whether French intervention would have been desirable (outside of a joint venture with Britain). I understand why it wouldn't have been from the British point of view but does he avoid mentioning it because it would have been impolitic due to the Entente?
Posted by: Bobby Farouk at December 6, 2004 10:26 AMI think Cromer would have considered it intolerable for any other European power to hold Egypt, and the Suez Canal, alone; so from the British perspective it wasn't an option even worth considering.
The British intervention absolutely infuriated the French, who had considered Egypt part of their sphere of influence since Napoleon's invasion; and did a great deal of damage to Anglo-French relations for 20 years, which up till that point had been fairly good. It wasn't till the Brits essentially traded off control of Morocco in 1904 that the rift was healed.
Posted by: Alan Allport at December 6, 2004 11:23 AM