A Collection of Articles Concerning Western Imperialism

"Not for the last time did Tucker write such a tendentious letter, shamelessly conjuring up the shadows of General Gordon and of Hannington. He wrote with minimal knowledge of the situation within Uganda, offering no evidence for his assertions on behalf of the Protestant Christians of Buganda who had after all been looking after themselves with a fair degree of success up to this point.

The letter was significant, however, in that it was written only two weeks after the Directors of the Company had made the decision to withdraw from Uganda, indicating the close contact between the institutions of the CMS [Christian Missionary Society] and the Company. Buxton epitomised this link by being on the Boards of both societies.

Tucker's letter was followed in August by a meeting between General Hutchinson, a prominent member of the CMS committee and a former Lay Secretary, and General Sir Arnold Kemball of the Company, who warned the Society that they required more than sympathy to enable the Company to remain in Uganda.

He [Tucker] questioned Portal [the Commissioner-General of Zanzibar] as to whether the British government would be prepared to take any steps towards the preservation of law and order in the country and argued that, if the British failed to act, then the Germans might respond to any situation of anarchy and appeals for help.

The latter was a shrewd argument on his part, because Tucker was well aware that if the British government was reluctant to take any responsibility in Uganda, it was even more reluctant to see another European power do so. That Tucker succeeded in touching a raw nerve was indicated by the prompt reply from Portal that he had referred the Bishop's point to Lord Salisbury who in turn had assured him that 'the Germans will certainly not be at liberty to undertake any occupation of the British sphere.'

Later in September 1892 Tucker wrote to Wigram, the Africa Secretary of CMS, to encourage him and the Society to use all their influence to bring the whole area in east Africa, that was considered to be a sphere of British influence, under a British Protectorate. The fund raising of the previous year was only a short-term measure, enabling the IBEA [Imperial British East Africa] Company to remain for one more year in Uganda. Tucker's concern now was to promote the longer term 'solution', as he saw it of a more formalised Protectorate status for Uganda.

In the issue of The Standard of 13 September 1892, a letter was published by Tucker in which he argued that the war in Mengo in January 1892 had been between political rather than religious parties. He then drew the lesson that the war provided the object lesson of what might ensue should the British withdraw from Uganda. His letter concluded: '... the abandonment of Uganda means dishonour to the English name, the revival of the slave-trade in Central Africa, the absolute waste of all that has been spent in the development of the country, the dispersion of the Native Church, the murder of our missionaries, and the continued disorder and bloodshed of a State at war with itself.'

This is a remarkably audacious letter that piles on assertions without evidence. Its tendentious nature is exacerbated by the emotive tone adopted, and it can only be described as unworthy propaganda. The propaganda war of 1892 continued when a letter was sent by some leading Baganda Protestants to CMS in London: 'We Baganda are under the Queen's flag; we very much want the agents of the Company to stay in our country.'

From within Uganda itself there was relative silence while Tucker was engaging in his campaign. The exception was Walker who was not impressed with the sentimental overstatement of many of the arguments deployed: 'I have seen statements which make it appear that the CMS in Buganda depends on the presence of the IBEA Company, and that were the IBEA Company to withdraw there would follow the desturction of the CMS etc etc. This is not at all the case.' He thus highlighted the lack of evidence behind the more emotive appeals of Tucker and others." ~ Bishop Alfred Tucker and the Establishment of a British Protectorate in Uganda 1890-94, Journal of Religion in Africa Vol. 31

The Afghanistan mission’s low public salience has allowed French and German leaders to disregard popular opposition and steadily increase their troop contributions to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). Berlin and Paris currently maintain the third and fourth highest ISAF troop levels, despite the opposition of 80 percent of German and French respondents to increased ISAF deployments, according to INR polling in fall 2009.

[...] messaging that dramatizes the potential adverse consequences of an ISAF defeat for Afghan civilians could leverage French (and other European) guilt for abandoning them. The prospect of the Taliban rolling back hard-won progress on girls' education could provoke French indignation, become a rallying point for France's largely secular public, and give voters a reason to support a good and necessary cause despite casualties.

Messages that dramatize the consequences of a NATO defeat for specific German interests could counter the widely held perception that Afghanistan is not Germany's problem. For example, messages that illustrate how a defeat in Afghanistan could heighten Germany’s exposure to terrorism, opium, and refugees might help to make the war more salient to skeptics.

~ Wikileaks recovered 2010 CIA memo

On 31 March 1893, the IBEAC formally ended its involvement in Uganda. Missionaries, led by Alfred Tucker, lobbied the British government to take over the administration of Uganda in place of the IBEAC, arguing that British withdrawal would lead to a continuance of the civil war between the different religious factions. Shortly after, Sir Gerald Portal, a representative of the British government on the ground in Uganda, proposed a plan of double chieftainships - whereby every chieftainship would have one Protestant and one Catholic chief. On 19 April 1893, the British government and the chiefs of Uganda signed a treaty giving effect to this plan.

On 18 June 1894, the British government declared that Uganda would come under British protection as a Protectorate. ~ Wikipedia