I hadn't heard about the Fashoda Incident before but I don't think it was necessarily a “good vs bad” scenario.  Which country has a right to effectively control trade in a foreign continent which belongs to neither?  I think a lot of this did in fact have to do with commerce, as I can't really understand how controlling right of way through deepest Africa would have to do with other possible factors.  I imagine it came about during a time when the potential for an African presence by England and France was recognized as something with great potential.  For many hundreds of years prior, exploration and colonization had been a fundamental part of a few countries' foreign policies and from what I understand was a key to domestic economic strength.  After many other countries had already been explored or became sovereign the next logical area by the late 19th Century was likely Africa; perhaps it was seen as being “uncivilized” and therefore England and France had legitimate business in bringing their cultures and policies to its nations.