РефератыИностранный языкHoHow Far Did Disraelis Conduct In Foreign

How Far Did Disraelis Conduct In Foreign

How Far Did Disraeli?s Conduct In Foreign Policy And Imperial Affairs Deserve The Criticism It Received? Essay, Research Paper


?He was essentially an opportunist and always placed Britain?s 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 Disraeli?s 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. Disraeli?s 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 Britain?s 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 Disraeli?s 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, Disraeli?s 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, Disraeli?s


imperialist conduct here was not supported by Derby, and Derby resigned and


w

as 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 4million pounds from the bankers Rothschilds 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 Britain?s dependence on Constantinople, thus dramatically


strengthening the growing Empire. The purchase itself is described by John Ramsden


as ?a personal coup on Disraeli?s part, conducted with skill and resolution.


Disraeli?s 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 ?Beaconsfieldism? 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 government?s and indeed his nation?s 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 Britain?s 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 ?unenglish?.


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, Disraeli?s 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 na?ve 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 Disraeli?s 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.

Сохранить в соц. сетях:
Обсуждение:
comments powered by Disqus

Название реферата: How Far Did Disraelis Conduct In Foreign

Слов:1387
Символов:9526
Размер:18.61 Кб.