From today’s vantage point we can see that the British empire gained an upper hand over the French.
The British controlled more of the earth’s territory and ruled over more people than the French did.
Britain led the Industrial Revolution. The movement went right around the world, but was taken up nowhere as much as it was taken up in the U.S.
At the same, the British navy went from strength to strength.
Between the 18th and 20th centuries, a period of roughly 200 years, Britain ruled the seas.
In one sense it was a maritime power and ruled over a maritime empire. But this is only half of the story.
After all, France also had a substantial navy and were as were proficient in exploring and sailing the world’s oceans.
Part of the Britain’s dominance may lie in it’s geography. Britain is an island nation. Located tantalisingly close to continental Europe. It is close, but it also has a touch of isolation. The English Channel provided it with a slight buffer.
Europe was frequently at war. At times it may have possible for other states to invade Britain. But it was usually easier invade France.
Portugal and Spain were right out there on the Iberian Peninsula. They didn’t have to watch their backs to the West.
France and Germany were in more precarious situations.
France had to worry about Britain to the north and it had to keep an eye on states in central Europe.
Germany was also surrounded by potential adversaries. It took Germany some time to cobble together the nation-state that we think of today. The fact that it took so long for Germany to unite was one of the reasons for Germany’s late arrival to imperialism. Another was Bismarck’s concern that colonies were an expensive folly that would probably drain more national wealth than they would provide.
As an island nation, Britain needed to have a strong navy to ensure its own protection but it did not necessarily need an extensive land-based army – certainly not to the extent that continental states did.
France had its hands full during the Napoleonic Wars. The French Revolution took place in 1789. The monarchy was overthrown and Louis XVI was executed.
Between 1792 and 1802, other European powers were trying to contain revolutionary France. They were concerned that the ideas of the Revolution would spread through the continent and provoke the fall of other monarchies.
They were even more alarmed when Napoleon Bonaparte seized power in 1799 and set about establishing French hegemony in Europe, and further afield. Bonaparte was happy to spread the ideals of the Revolution.
Britain, Austria, Russia and Prussia all felt threatened by France and joined in fighting against her.
Between 1803 and 1807 France had the upper hand. But by 1815 it was all over with France’s final defeat at Waterloo.
Over half a century later, Europe was again rocked by balance-of-power geopolitics. The Franco-Prussian War (1870-71) was primarily about the unification of Germany and equilibrium in Europe. In 1870 Prussia was the most powerful German state. Prime Minister Bismarck wanted the unification of Germany under Prussian leadership, not Austrian. France did not wish to see a united and militarised Germany threatening her on her doorstep. In this conflict, France would suffer military defeats and lose Alsace and parts of Lorraine.
World War I was France’s third major war in a century. France formed part of the Triple Entente along with Russia and Britain. Again, the containment of Germany was the central feature. Germany invaded France via Belgium and the famous Western Front was born. The years through 1915 and 1916 were notable for their bloody attrition. The 1917 Russian Revolution led Russia to turn inwards, leaving the Germans free to focus their efforts westwards. Large swathes of northern France were occupied. Although the war had been very costly to France, it had been able to take back Alsace-Lorraine at the conclusion of the war.
As Britain had also been worried about containing Germany, it found itself fighting alongside France. If Germany were to take France, it would have presented a clear threat to Britain’s global supply routes and hence her empire. Many Brits fought in France. The Royal Navy also carried out a blockade of Germany. The war did take a toll on Britain. It was left with large debts, but it was still in a better position than France, where much of the fighting had taken place.
Turning our attention back towards the the colonial clash between the two powers, we find that wherever Britain and France came up against one another, Britain usually won.
The British took Acadia / Nova Scotia in 1713.
It took Canada during the Seven Years War (1756-63). In the European theatre of the war Britain and Prussia fought France, Austria, Russia, Spain and Sweden, but overseas the conflict was principally a contest between Britain and France for control of colonies.
France and Britain fought the Carnatic Wars in India, the result being that France’s influence in Pondicherry was greatly reduced.
Britain took Dominica and Grenada in 1763.
The French sold Louisiana Territory to the U.S. in 1803 for $15 million. France was busy dealing with the Haitian Revolution (1791-1804). It also needed money for its wars in Europe. The logistical problems of holding on to Louisiana was just to difficult to overcome.
The British took Île-de-France in 1810.
The loss of individual islands by themselves don’t seem that important. But when you consider all of the losses of over time, it becomes clear that each French loss and each British gain was the result of two colonial powers battling for supremacy. The more high value the target, the more the British were determined to get it. The British focused on gaining large expanses of territory (Canada, Australia, Africa, North America), and areas with large populations (India). India is an interesting example. During the time of the British East Indian Company and the British Raj, the subcontinent already had a population in the hundreds of millions that could provide a massive labor force. At the same time it served as a huge taxable population. India was also a large market for finished goods.
France mostly lost territories to Britain, and permanent gains from Britain were almost nonexistent. France was left with far-flung scattered islands with tiny populations.
French Polynesia and New Caledonia
French Polynesia is made up of more than 120 islands and atolls.
It was taken over by the French in 1842.
According to trendeconomy.com, in 2023 exports were worth US $161 million. 66% of this came from pearls. 7.84% was “classified as fish, crustaceans, molluscs and other invertebrates.”
On the other hand, imports were worth US $999 million. 43% were commodities not specified by kind. 3.5% (US $80 million) was for medicine.1
According to World Integrated Trade Solution (WITS), GNI per capita was US $25,270, which was significantly more than Papua New Guinea, but behind New Caledonia.2
French Polynesia imports much more than it exports.
The Islands are dependent on many imported goods.
Tourism is a key industry and foreign exchange earner.
Financial assistance from France is substantial.
From France, the islands receive budgetary subsidies, funding for infrastructure, health and education.
The seafloor around the islands host an array of minerals, but they remain unexploited.
France has one of the largest Exclusive Economic Zones in the world – especially in French Polynesia. This is the benefit of having tiny islands scattered over a large area. EEZs can extend to up to 200 nautical miles from the coast. French Polynesia has around 4.8 million square kilometers of EEZ.3 While France has such an incredibly large EEZ, it is not heavily exploited in an economic sense. Only around 0.01% of the EEZ is land; the rest is ocean.
The French never derived a clear net-profit form French Polynesia.
From the late 19th century to today, France spent more than it received. It spent money on administration, provided subsidies, maintained maritime links and a military presence. It also payed for infrastructure and social services. Meanwhile, is took back much less in taxation, customs revenues and via resource extraction.
French Polynesia experienced no major commodities boom.
There was no gold to be had or major mineral mining. What mineral resources there are in the territory, are to be found on the seabed and have not been developed.
Between 1966 and 1996, French Polynesia became the host for France’s nuclear tests. This contributed to much more economic activity in the islands. But it was essentially an internal transfer within the French network. Money went from the French mainland to the islands.
The case of French Polynesia challenges the dominant narrative that European colonialism was always extractive and profitable.
It seems that France held on to French Polynesia for other reasons. These include a military interest, geopolitics and even a degree of symbolism or national pride. The nuclear tests arguably raised the military profile of France, solidifying its reputation as nuclear power. It also gave it more weight at the UN Security Council and in world affairs more generally.
The situation in New Caledonia was a little different.
Between 1853 and the 1900s, New Caledonia was a net-loss for France in pure financial terms.
But things changed.
The difference between French Polynesia and New Caledonia can be summed in one word – nickel.
New Caledonia had it while French Polynesia remained without a major commodity.
In fact, new Caledonia had some of the richest deposits in the world.
Industrial extraction began in the 1870s.
The colonial administration benefited from mineral royalties. Historically, nickel royalties went to institutions in New Caledonia and not the central French government. By 2009, New Caledonia could set its own royalty rates. Nickel is considered a local resource of New Caledonia. Most of the royalties go to provincial governments.
However, most of the profits on nickel mining were realised by companies in France, where they were based.
New Caledonia experienced economic booms linked to war. Whenever there was a significant global conflict, the demand for nickel for use in munitions increased. Consequently, there were booms during World War I, the Korean War and the Vietnam war. The market was still buoyant in the 2000s and 2010s as nickel was still in demand as a global commodity.
Both New Caledonia and French Polynesia are still part of the French Republic. New Caledonia has more autonomy than French Polynesia, being considered semi-autonomous. France controls defense, foreign affairs and immigration.
While both are French overseas territories, New Caledonia is a sui geneis collectivity – unique in the French system. French Polynesia is a collectivité d’outre-mer (COM).
New Caledonia has a pathway to independence via referendum. In French Polynesia, independence would require French approval.
New Caledonia has more control over its resources and has more fiscal independence.
Residents in both territories are considered French citizens.
British and French competition for overseas possessions has been going on for centuries. Strengthened by the Industrial Revolution and shielded more strongly from European continental wars, Britain was able to get an upper hand over France. Almost everywhere they came into contact, Britain would end up as the permanent victor. Britain focused on an acquiring vast territories, large populations and key ports in Asia such as Hong Hong and Singapore. These were much more important than the more isolated French possessions in the Indian Ocean or the Pacific. Importantly, Britain has its own successor state in the form of the United States. The U.S. eclipsed Britain in terms of industrial output and economic strength, going on to establish its own empire. Many remaining French territories are remote, with few resources for exploitation. They have small populations and are expensive to administer.
- trendeconomy.com/data/h2/FrenchPolynesia/TOTAL ↩︎
- wits.worldbank.org/CountryProfile/en/Country/PYF/Year/LTST/Summary ↩︎
- http://www.spc.int/our-members/french-polynesia/details ↩︎
Australia and the World Past and Present 
Leave a comment