Disraelis Foreign And Imperialist Policies example essay topic

How Far Did Disraelis Conduct In Foreign Policy And Imperial Affairs Deserve The Criticism It Received He was essentially an opportunist and always placed Britains immediate interests above any underlying principle or moral consideration. (Lee) The above quotation describes Disraeli very well. His primary and permanently sustained goal was his own political career, and the short-term interests of Britain. This can be seen as both a criticism and a positive aspect. Such a description is justified by looking at Disraelis foreign policy during his period in office between 1874 and 1880.

Such policy falls into four main categories; the purchase of Suez Canal Shares, the Zulu War, the Afghan War and the Eastern Question. As outlined above, Disraeli was an opportunist and, by nature, was always more interested in the short term than the long-term, simply because the long-term had no immediate benefit to him, the Conservatives or the country. Disraeli believed in the greatness of Great Britain (Scott-Baumann) and this is very much apparent in his handling of the Eastern Question. This question was arguably the most complex of all problems faced by nineteenth century diplomats. The crumbling Ottoman Empire and the oppression of the Christian races in the Balkans both heightened these peoples want for freedom and the desire of the Russian Empire to expand southward at the expense of the Turks. Disraelis involvement in this issue came from the fact that Russian expansion might threaten the vital Suez Canal, and also that he felt British prestige in the Eastern Mediterranean and Central Asia were also at stake.

To Disraeli, the issue was obvious Constantinople is the key to India, and this principle laid the foundation for Britains commitment to upholding the Ottoman Empire. It was not until June 1876, when news reached London of an uprising in Bulgaria, which the Turks had repressed with appalling brutality, killing 12,000 Bulgarian peasants, that Disraelis imperial conduct suffered massive criticism. Gladstone produced a pamphlet attacking Disraeli vigorously, and succeeded in appealing to the better moral nature of a large section of the electorate. Disraeli deepened this criticism of him by dismissing the reports of Liberal newspapers as being based on nothing more than coffee-house babble.

This was a very bad error of judgement, as it portrayed him as being heartless and callous, and went against the popular prominence of moral politics in the Victorian era. In this instance, Disraeli very much deserved the criticism he received, as The blunder revealed... an insensitivity to the passionate moral earnestness that inspired the political commitments of many Victorians. (Scott-Baumann) However, with relevance to The Eastern Question, Disraelis masterstroke was at the Berlin Congress. Because of the treaties of San Stefano, Russia gained a lot of Turkish Land, and this humiliated the Turks a great deal. While the Suez Canal and Egypt were not threatened, thus meaning there was no direct threat to Britain, Disraeli and Britain were not the only nation to react angrily to the Russian expansion. The Austrians joined Britain in demanding a world conference, and when Bismarck joined in and offered Berlin as a neutral venue, the congress took place, the Russians knowing they had no choice but to agree.

The Russians played for time and Disraeli used this to good effect by re-distributing troops from India to the Mediterranean. Disraeli agreed to defend Turkish interests in return for the purchase of Cyprus, which he planned to use as a naval base. Russia were then allowed to keep Caucasus and the Austrians occupied Bosnia and Herzegovina. The threat to Constantinople was completely removed by the division of Big Bulgaria and Disraeli returned home, having secured Cyprus, claiming peace with honour.

At the time, few disputed this. However, Disraelis imperialist conduct here was not supported by Derby, and Derby resigned and was replaced by Salisbury. While Salisbury was excellent in this field, finalising the details for most of the above arrangements this did cause unrest in the cabinet and lessened the triumphant impact of the Berlin Congress. A further area in which Disraeli deserved praise was in his purchasing of the Suez Canal shares. The Khedive of Egypt, faced with bankruptcy, out 175 million Suez Canal shares up for sale. Acting quickly, and without Parliamentary authority, Disraeli borrowed 4 million pounds from the bankers Rothschild's and bought all of them.

This made Britain the single largest shareholder, and besides getting one over on France, this secured the Suez Canal as a passage to India and also lessened Britains dependence on Constantinople, thus dramatically strengthening the growing Empire. The purchase itself is described by John Ramsden as a personal coup on Disraelis part, conducted with skill and resolution. Disraelis disappointments came in the shape of the Zulu and Afghanistan wars. In 1876 he appointed a keen imperialist, Lord Lytton, as Viceroy of India, sponsored a new British mission to Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan, aimed at extending British influence, and keeping the Russians at bay. At first this seemed a success but in September 1879, they were all massacred.

This was a disaster for Disraeli, and Gladstone violently attacked this area of Beaconsfield ism again preying on the support for moral politics. However, it is true that the Viceroy acted against instructions, and so this limits justification for criticism of Disraeli, but nevertheless, Disraeli appointed him, and as Prime Minister is very much accountable for his governments and indeed his nations actions. Similarly, the Zulu war proved a big embarrassment to both an imperialist government and population. Indeed, the defeat at Isandhlwana was the worst humiliation ever suffered by a British Army in Africa.

(Lee) Although in his defence, Britain eventually won both the Zulu and the resulting Afghanistan War, both events were a great embarrassment to him and the nation, particularly as both wars were entirely self-induced and rather unnecessary. Lastly, there was the Royal Titles Act. This was when Disraeli made Queen Victoria the Empress of India. Much of the population adored this, as it so well depicted Britains world authority.

One such admirer was the Queen herself, who promptly made him Earl of Beaconsfield. However, Gladstone again attacked this, saying how the Queen being Empress of India was intrinsically un english. Furthermore, many people realised at the time that this was just another example of Disraeli as an opportunist. Bearing this in mind, The Royal Titles Act can be looked on as both a success and a failure. Perhaps it did deserve the criticism it received, as it is more than likely that it was, in truth, an attempt to receive further support from Queen Victoria, a very popular public figure.

In conclusion, Disraelis foreign and imperialist policies were of mixed success. Both the Suez Canal shares and the Congress of Berlin were highly successful and received little criticism. On balance though, in an era with a great admiration for moral politics, personified in Gladstone, he was very nave to support the Turks, even after their atrocious deeds, and later to compound this by dismissing it as coffee-house babble. The Zulu and Afghan Wars were further examples of Disraelis opportunistic imperialism, and perhaps exposed a passion for prestige so strong he was unconcerned with the means of achieving this.

However, Disraeli and Gladstone are, without any shadow of a doubt, the most beautiful example of British adversarial politics, and criticism, by its very nature, comes from opponents, and in the case of these two men, praise does not. Bearing this in mind, Disraeli did deserve the criticism he received on issues such as the Afghan War and the support for Turkey, but also deserves equal praise for his expert handling of the Congress of Berlin and the Suez Canal..