Imperial Liberalism or Liberal Imperialism: British Policy in Egypt, 1893-94

自由主義的信念本與帝國主義不合，但在事關國家利益的外交與帝國政策上， 自由黨人終究不能堅持理想而採行可能喪權辱國的溫和作法。十九世紀後期英國自由黨的政治理念固與保守黨大相逕庭，但此種差異主要表現在內政方；在外交政策上，自由黨則不得不走向保守主義式的路線。本文即藉著討論羅斯柏理 (Lord Rosebery) 擔任外交部長時期英國對埃政策的發展，說明自由黨由反帝國主義形象轉為帝國權益擁護者的變化脈絡及其意義。文分五節：導言分析1892年自由黨大選勝利後羅斯柏理就任外交部長時的政治氣氛，以及同年埃及新任總督艾伯斯 (Abbas Hilmi II) 即位時英埃關係的微妙變化；第二節論述1893年初「艾伯斯政潮」 (Abbas' Coup) 的發展與英國對埃控制力的強化；第三節探討艾伯斯政潮之後自由黨政府對埃政策路線「向右」的調整；第四節檢討1894 年初蘇丹「邊境事件」 (Frontier Incident) 的發展與英國領埃威權的鞏固；結論解釋1893年至1894年間英國對埃政策所表現的「自由派帝國主義」( ' Liberal Imperialism，) 精神及其影響。綜合言之，經過這二、三年間的變化，英國統埃的機制大改，英國逐步將埃及納為「保護地」，而自由黨的帝國政策則明顯趨向於「保守主義化」。Essentially, liberalism contradicts imperialism; but in Realpolitik liberals rarely stand against imperial enterprise. Such is the case of the British Liberal Party during the late nineteenth century. Focused on Lord Rosebery's policy towards Egypt under Gladstone's last ministry, this thesis argues that, as far as foreign policy was concerned, the Liberals in the early 1890s discarded their 'outdated' beliefs in rationalism and pacifism, and assumed an attitude not different from that of their political opponents - the Conservatives. This change of attitude was highly justifiable and popular as the Liberal decision-makers raised questions about national interests under conditions of increasing competition form the other Powers. This article treats of the political atmosphere in 1892, when Lord Rosebery and Abbas Hilmi II took office as the British Foreign Secretary and the new khedive respectively, and the so-called Abbas' Coup in 1893 and the Frontier Incident in 1894, to show how 'Liberal Imperialism' developed and the British occupation of Egypt became 'permanent', in spite of strong Liberal idealists' opposition. The author points out that in dealing with the Egyptian question the Liberal Party was losing touch with liberalism and getting more and more 'conservative', and that while achieving more popularity with the British public in this way, the Liberal Party grievously alienated its fundamentalist supporters, which detracted from its merit and worth as an independent political group