Within Europe there were three main powers, France, Germany and Britain, which had a key role in ‘imperial’ foreign affairs. After 1871, the French Republic had its own unofficial empire with France being headed by a president. The main areas of French colonization were French West Africa, French Equatorial Africa, and French Indo-China. In the 1870’s French foreign policy reverted to the tradition of the liberal alliance with Britain “In the following decade, however, colonial rivalries soured Anglo- French relations, especially in Africa.”- John Lowe and Robert Pearce. The high point of this 2nd colonial empire was from 1890-1914 As John Lowe and Robert Pearce state in there book Rivalry and Accord “France herself became a great imperial power in this period with extensive colonial possessions in both Africa and Asia.” In what is known to the French as the ‘Beautiful Age’. Germany on the other had did not have an ‘extensive’ empire. It is important to note that 1815 Germany had not been a single country but a geographical expression, with the thirty-nine states of the German confederation established by the Vienna settlement of 1815. In 1866 Prussia’s economic ascendancy over Austria from the 1830’s by means of the Zollverein, a customs union which Austria was excluded meant that many of the smaller ‘Germanic states’ were ‘united’. The formation of a Germany, which holds a resemblance to the Germany known today, occurred in 1871 with Germany being dominated by Bismarck. The country had sever military links with politics the Kaiser was also ‘supreme warlord’. Its empire is best described as small scattered empire and only possessed ten colonial territories by 1914 compared to the twenty- nine French colonial territories by 1914. Its colonies were focused mainly on South Africa. Germany a young, immature country was keen to possess an outward display of its power, in the form of an empire, which it regarded as a sign of power. In contrast to Germans empire Britain possessed a total of fifty-five colonies across all continents by 1914. Although Britain’s initial phase of imperial expansion around the 17th century, its second more measure growth occurred around 1870- 1914 and went hand in had with the expansion of British industry, trade and overseas investment. “It coincided with the resurgence of European imperial rivalry. The Rapid growth of the British Empire took place mainly in Africa and Asia.” The climax of all this imperial excitement erupted in 1899- 1902 in the form of the Boer War. Leading to something of a loss of confidence in the idea of imperialism, “although in economic terms the Empire continued to grow in importance as British industrial goods faced increasing competition, especially from the USA and Germany.”
The fact that there was limited land and these countries were all striving for land, to add to their empire meant that there was a potential for conflict among these powers. These ‘imperial concerns’ were outwardly emphasized in the incidents which took place in Africa in the 1890’s. The African agreements of 1890 which were a series of agreements over African territories, signed by Britain along with other European powers in order to avoid conflict over territories in Africa, this highlights, how imperial concerns ultimately guided foreign policy. Salisbury, not wanting to risk military confrontations in Africa, wasting valuable resources in maintaining the Imperial British presence in Africa; initiated these agreements, illustrating the affect imperial concerns were having on British foreign policy. As well as these agreements with the European powers in Africa, two other incidents; between the French and the British also effectively display how colonial concerns were loosely guiding British Foreign Policy. The first occurred in 1896- 98; this was the re-conquest of the Sudan; Salisbury wanting to capture the Sudan, to keep it under British control and Neutralise the possible threat to Egypt from France, although “British control of the Sudan was assured, […] the French still had hopes in the area” (Norman Lowe). This lead to the Fashoda Incident in 1898, Salisbury wanting to neutralise French ambitions in the Sudan from threatening trade: the result was “viewed as a personal triumph for Salisbury”- Norman Lowe. These few incidents, in Africa illustrate how imperial concerns directed British Foreign Policy, the British not wanting to be drawn into conflict initiated the African agreements, but realised that conflict was necessary in order to preserve their imperial strength.
This British imperial strength however, was being challenged by a new power- Germany. “…the years between 1880 and 1910 had become a much more formidable rival to Britain in Many areas of economic production” Germany’s economic competition was “widely regarded as unfair and, therefore, an important source of irritation”. (Derrick Murphy), by analysing the trade relationship between the two countries we will be able to determine how imperial concerns were affecting, Britain’s ‘economic foreign policy, with Germany. When describing the ‘trade relationship’ between these two countries it is apt to say, that both were heavily reliant on each other, in 1890 British imports from Germany totalled a 26 million pounds and British exports to Germany 19.2 million pounds, in the year 1905 the British imports from Germany had doubled to 53.8 million pounds and the British exports from Germany had increased by one and a half times to 29.7 million. Although the exports from Britain to Germany were not as dramatic as that from Germany to Britain; it can be recognised that Germany was heavily dependent on the British Empire for materials “Britain had remained the leading market for German exports throughout this entire period” (Paul Kennedy). Germanys percentage of world trade was growing fast; Britain’s ‘mature economy’ had lost six percent of world trade from 1880 to 1913 where Germanys economy had grown by three percent. “Germany was able, by utilising steam, electrical and rail power, to achieve growth rates which were higher than those of a ‘mature economy’ like Britain’s […] Germany’s industrial expansion was, in many respects, in the more advanced and qualitatively superior sectors of the economy” (Paul Kennedy). The ‘trade rivalry’ between the two countries was that a long list of particular industries and firms felt themselves in a struggle with their British or German counter parts, their were complaints on either side that each had an unfair advantage however a great number of these complaints were from Britain concentrating on the ‘unfair’ German Tariff system, in a report by the Tariff commission in sectors such as agricultural machinery trade within Germany from Britain ‘Duties had gradually close the market’ from heavy taxing from the Germans.
Britain’s policy, had till then been, naively, one of free trade however As Andrew Thompson comments “Just as one individual- Richard Cobden- is now synonymous with the repeal of the Corn Laws so another- Joseph Chamberlain- is identifies with the campaign for tariff reform” He felt that Britain should expand imperial trade, advocating the use of tariff’s to allow Britain’s economy to flourish. This sole issue would dominate British politics for nearly a decade. The tariff reform league was set up to rally support for this issue. It’s mandate was to “advocate the employment of the Tariff with a view to consolidate and develop the resources of the empire.” Support for Tariff reform and the rise of Anglo- German antagonism was sector dependant e.g. “it surely is significant that neither […] Birmingham machine makers joined the various Anglo-German friendship committees whereas Lancashire mill owners did.” (Paul Kennedy) the reason being that Germans was heavily taxing British goods entering Germany, in sectors where Germany’s economy was reliant, mainly new industries such as machine making. Conclusively, imperial concerns, such as foreign trade aboard was affecting foreign policy within Britain, proposals for a new tariff system within Britain were being debated; an incident which depicts how these imperial concerns were affecting Britain’s foreign policy can be seen in 1903, when due to ‘anti German fever’ Britain withdrew its support for a Berlin- Baghdad railway scheme.
This Anglo- German antagonism, was also felt in, politics. The new German Chancellor began to steer Germany into a ‘New Course’; this ‘new course’ commonly referred to, as ‘Caprivi’s new course’ were the new policies introduced by the latest German Chancellor. “He sought to disengage the Reich from the web of international commitments which had been spun by Bismarck” (Eric Wilmot) with this new attitude in mind parallels can be drawn with the way Salisbury conducted his foreign affairs- conveniently although misleadingly dubbed ‘splendid’ isolation. With Germany conducting its foreign policy differently, the Reinsurance treaty with Russia was not renewed; as a consequence of this in 1894 Russia concluded an alliance with France “the Franco- Russian Alliance stated if either power was attacked by Germany, then the other would come to her aid” (Eric Wilmot). In the “early 1890’s relations between Germany and Britain were very cordial” (Eric Wilmot) These German aspirations of an alliance led to what Paul Kennedy describes as ‘colonial marriage’ the Heligoland- Zanzibar Treaty of 1890 it was as Paul Kennedy comments “The high point of Salisburian colonial policy […] whereby, in exchange for the [insignificant] island of Heligoland, Britain gained Zanzibar and large tracts of East Africa” wrongly perceiving that Britain want to become part of the triple alliance realising that Britain in 1894 was uninterested in the restrictive commitments of a formal alliance, Caprivi resigned, leaving Germany isolated from the majority of Europe. In 1896 causing great offence to Britain, Kaiser Wilhelm II writing to the Boer leader congratulating him for resisting the ‘Jamison raid’. “The Kruger Telegram caused outrage in Britain and took Anglo-German relations to their lowest point for many years.” (Eric Wilmot). Within the turmoil of German politics emerged a new idea pursued by the Kaiser: Weltpolik- simply the desire for colonies “second only to Britain as the world’s largest trading and commercial nation […] this strength was not reflected in the size of her over seas empire” (John Lowe) the view was that, the possession of an large overseas empire, outwardly demonstrated the power a country held; describing the feeling within Germany Eyre Crowe believed that “public opinion continue with one voice to declare: we must have real colonies”. It was this desire- ‘Weltpolitik’- the desire for colonies; lead to Germanies desire for ‘Mittelafrika’ merely the possession of the middle of Africa. This new world policy led to the Portuguese colonies agreement of 1898, Britain not wanting to risk conflict in the event of a fall of the Portuguese empire, signed a secret clause that they would share the Portuguese colonies of middle Africa which John Lowe conjectures “seemed to offer the prospect of more substantial colonial gains which might have made reality of German aspirations to dominate ‘middle Africa’.” Lastly Salisbury not wanting the encumbrance of a colony in China, yet still desiring to maintain trade with the region, at the Kaiser’s suggestion, “an Anglo- German convention was signed, sometimes know as the Yangtze Agreement. Both promised to maintain the ‘open door’ in China to the trade of all nations and to check foreign aggression.”
“By the turn of the century, however, many British statesman were becoming convinced that Britain’s resources were over stretched and that she needed allies if she were to maintain her role as a world power.” (John Lowe) This view far from the notions of Salisbury’s pursuit of ‘splendid isolation’; led Britain to initiate a series of alliances, the first was the Anglo- Japanese alliance as Mike Byrne concludes in his book ‘British History, 1815- 1914’ “the Japanese were still determined to keep Korea under their control, while the British were concerned to find a way to counter the growing Russian influence in the Far East. Thus the seeds of the Anglo- Japanese alliance were sown.” In October 1900 Salisbury gave up the Foreign Office and Lord Lansdowne took his place. As Norman Lowe suggests in ‘Modern British History’ “Lansdowne, like Chamberlain [Colonial Secretary], had long been in favour of a more positive approach to finding Britain an ally…” The eventual alliance which was formed was a tentative alliance; they would agree, “to assist if the other went to war with two or more powers” (Michael Lynch) as Derrick Murphy states in ‘Britain 1783- 1918’ “In one sense its focus was defensive… in the unlikely event of the French and Russian fleets co-ordinating strategy.” The imperial concerns that Russia was becoming too dominant in the Far- East and the fact “Britain realised that a Far Eastern ally would strengthen British naval power which was spread far too thinly.” would allow Britain to maintain the ‘two power’ superiority, as Japan could support the British presence in the Far East.
In 1904 the entente cordiale, a ‘friendly agreement’ with France was established. The attitude from Britain was as Bertie, the assistant under-secretary stated, “If we are certain of France, no one can have designs upon us.” As the threat of a Russo- Japanese war grew, pressure for an understanding were cultivated “It was no coincidence that the Anglo- French agreement was concluded in April 1904.” The main provisions within this ‘friendly understanding’ were: Egypt and Morocco were “recognised as British and French spheres of influence respectively”- Michael Byrne. In the event of an internal collapse of Morocco then France would establish a protectorate there; and various disputes over Newfoundland, Madagascar and Siam were settled. The concerns that a Russo- Japanese war would lead to a conflict involving both France and Britain, lead to this entente; also solving colonial disputes in Africa.
“Russia was coming to recognise the desirability of an understanding with Britain” and they were “turning away from the Far East after the disasters at the hands of the Japanese in 1905.”- Derrick Murphy. The main causes of this entente were war and domestic tensions leaving Russia very venerable. The main provisions of this entente were: Persia was to be divided into three zones, a Russian zone adjacent to her frontier, a buffer zone and a British zone in the south- east covering the Indian Border. Russia and Britain both agreed to refrain from influence in both Afghanistan and Tibet; also agreeing to respect each other’s spheres of influence. The British were willing to agree to the entente, which neutralised Russian ambitions in India- ‘the Jewel of Britain’s Imperial Crown’
Conclusively British imperial concerns did affect their foreign policy between 1890- 1907. Firstly, in 1890 the ‘African agreements’ illustrated this fact greatly, not wanting to become involved in colonial disputes Britain initiated these agreements. Trade relations with Germany also spurned imperial concerns to affect foreign policy with the formation of Joseph Chamberlains Tariff Reform League. Colonial disputes and agreements with Germany also outwardly displayed how imperial concerns affected British foreign policies, with agreements such as the Portuguese Colonies agreement of 1898, concerns that the British empire would create economic and military problems for Britain, any potential conflicts and problems were solved fast. The series of agreements and ententes came in 1902- 1907 with a change in Foreign Secretary who was keen to initiate, and ‘de-isolate’ Britain from other countries, The benefits from these series of these ententes were great with the Anglo- Japanese alliance leading to an entente with both France and Russia, creating tight relations, which would become stronger during the first world war. These imperial concerns which affected foreign policy within Britain can be regarded as “preclusive imperialism- annexing territory, not because it was valuable economically, but merely to forestall a rival.” (John Lowe) Britain realising that other countries were employing ‘preclusive’ imperialism, understood that rivalry could escalate into Europe, employing a defensive foreign policy, to preserve their empire and protect their interests.
