The extent of British intervention in Egypt has been a source of some contention within academic communities, with regards to the motivations behind it. Did their presence serve a political purpose? Or was the drive of economic imperialism the most powerful motivator? Examination of work on the subject reveals a variety of argued rationales comprised of political and economic incentives. Channeling Mobilities by Valeska Huber, Gladstone’s Imperialism by Robert T. Harrison, and Ends of British Imperialism by Wm. Roger Louis all combat this topic and offer their own takes on why the British Empire was inspired to assert control within Egypt.
Channeling Mobilities focuses on an investigation of the opening of transportation through Egypt with the construction of the Suez Canal and its opening in 1869. Huber highlights the economic, political, and social impacts of British control in the region, which relied upon the increased access allowed by the newly constructed Canal. Despite initial opposition, the British relented to the Canal’s implementation as the potential benefits became clear. Huber makes the argument that colonial expansion during the mid-late nineteenth century increased the need for increased communication, which could be provided by the waterway (CM 29). Both politically and economically, this increased in communication speeds benefitted Great Britain, as the extensive empire required the constant exchange of information to function efficiently. In turn, British control of Port Said to the North served as an important connection between the mainland and her holdings throughout Asia and the Pacific (CM 82). From this position, the empire exerted economic control and projected political power throughout the region making a presence necessary for the maintenance of effective control. Huber makes this point through the examination of troop movements through the Canal Zone, particularly during the course of the First World War (CM 72). This represented a further projection of British political influence throughout the international community, as well the protection of economic interests abroad.
Robert T. Harrison’s work, Gladstone’s Imperialism, largely addresses the political intentions behind British intervention. Rather than the direct importance of Egypt to the empire, British intervention facilitated the protection of interests in India, the “Jewel of the Empire,” serving as a “lifeline” (GI 52). Harrison highlights the upheaval brought by Arabi’s nationalist revolt in 1879, which opposed the foreign presence of British and French interests in the Canal Zone (GI 5). The increasing political radicalism of era threatened the established link between Britain and India through Port Said and challenged the established political order of European dominion. Harrison argues that it was in British political interests to increase intervention in the region, as it was morally necessary to “[save] Egypt for liberty and from anarchy” (GI 111). This narrative of political freedom for the Egyptian people appears to have been a common theme throughout the later nineteenth century, particularly following the nationalist upheaval. The political language of freedom and the preservation of liberty, however, served to camouflage the economic interests of bondholder’s in the Suez Canal Company, many of whom were British (GI 76). To this end, the language of righteous political intervention still served economic goals for the empire as a whole and individual investors in the Canal project.
In comparison to both Harrison and Huber, in Ends of British Imperialism, Wm. Roger Louis examines the collapse of the British Empire in the mid-twentieth century and the ensuing Suez Crisis in 1956. While the timeline has progressed almost a full century, the motivations behind British intervention do not vary greatly from those of the 1880s. Louis operates under the assumption that the empire served to support Britain economically, and the transportation provided by the Canal served as an important cog in that machine (EBI 29). Prompted by Nasser’s nationalization of the Suez Canal Company in 1956, the British moved to protect the loss of important economic interests, which had persisted beyond the formal dissolution of empire, as well as the financial importance of the Company itself (EBI 478). The significant variance in this incident, however, was the presence of Cold War political tensions. The revival of Arab nationalism, reminiscent of Arabi in the previous century, concerned the Western powers in the face of increasing Soviet influence and the instability it brought (EBI 482). Nasser himself was viewed as a loose cannon in the international order, as an influential member of the Third World and his attempts to remain free of influence from either sphere (EBI 649). Louis juxtaposes these political concerns with economic arguments framing the Canal’s nationalization as “theft,” highlighting the continued synchronicity of political and economic aims (EBI 653).
While these three works ultimately deal with two different instances of intervention in Egypt, they produce a rather coherent narrative of justification. Economic necessity or benefit appears to inhabit the primary role, but frequently employs elements of political reasoning to validate action. These themes do vary in strength, but they also transcend temporal barriers.
Works:
Harrison, Robert T. Gladstone’s Imperialism in Egypt: Techniques of Domination. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1995.
Huber, Valeska. Channelling Mobilities: Migration and Globalisation in the Suez Canal Region and Beyond, 1869 – 1914. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
Louis, Wm. Roger. Ends of British Imperialism: The Scramble for Empire, Suez and Decolonization. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006.
