End of the idyll
210. End of the idyll.
Russian help in the negotiations between the Sultan and Muhammed Ali with a resulting Convention of Kütahya had been followed the Russian-Ottoman Treaty of Hünkâr İskelesi. Formally, this was a treaty of mutual defense with a provision that, in the case of war, the Ottoman Empire, instead of providing a military help, upon request of Russia, should close the Dardanelles to all foreign warships. The request was seemingly reasonable but the results proved otherwise.
To the various degrees Britain and France considered this treaty as an infringement on their existing and, equally important, potential future interests based upon an assumption that the Ottoman Empire is a legitimate zone of their, existing or not, imperial interests. Not that there was any obvious reason for the British or French warships to enter the Black Sea but wasn’t it a matter of principle?
Britain, France, Ottoman Empire and Egypt
This treaty added new fuel to the fire of the Ottoman decline narrative. The Ottoman Empire now seemed to many to have become a Russian vassal state. Both in France and Britain the governments had been blamed for being too timid.
France: “The Ottoman Empire had been ‘a long term ally of France, our faithful and inseparable ally,…. they were separated from us and fell under the protection of Russia”. Somehow it was forgotten that the French troops occupied territory of the “faithful … ally” and had been instrumental in taking it from him.
Britain: “Our economical reformers had been gratified. Our ministers had been praised for their carefulness of the public money. We had saved two millions. We had lost Turkey.” The obvious question how one can lost something he did not own was not asked.
Of course, by now the issue of the Ottoman Empire was closely linked to Egypt and the interests of these two entities had been incompatible posing a hard task of a choice for the French and British governments.
With all their differences, Britain and France easily figured out that “united European front” in Egypt is going to be, for a time being, the best way to achieve their goals because dealing with Muhammed Ali was not a simple issue. On the one hand, the European powers and their agents and merchants desired stability in governance from the existing local authorities. As such, Britain and France tried to both bolster and influence local elites in an attempt to earn benefits for their agents and merchants. On the other hand, informal European influence in Egypt could counterbalance the supposedly formal Ottoman imperial influence.
By establishing his own independent methods of contact with Europe, Muhammad Ali could bypass formal Ottoman power structures and negotiate directly with the British and French governments. Ali also discussed issues with the French and British consuls, and was open about his desires, especially his desires to keep Britain and France on his side. Yet, Ali was not always cooperative with British and French desires (which was extremely nasty of him) , and his independent trade and economic policies were a long-time sticking point with France and Britain. The same goes for his “imperialism”:
“In one sense the wali was caught up in a vicious circle. In order to force a recognition of his independence from both Ottomans and Europeans alike, he must needs overstep his boundaries and acquire an empire, thereby earning Ottoman and European enmity which inhibited his quest for independence.”
Of course, both European powers involved had a semi-religious belief that part of their mission is to civilize “the Orient” (which, among other considerations, will be good for business).
Francois Guizot thought that ‘wherever European and Christian civilisation establishes itself, there also France is bound to assume its place and exercise its own genius.’ In the minds of the French, as Muhammad Ali was helping to bring Egypt into the modern era, it would be only natural for Egypt to come closer to France, the most ‘advanced’ country. A prevailed ideology was that informal imperial relationships with overseas states could be preferable to colonial conquest and commercially more lucrative. Algeria, being something of an aberration, did not count except as the mission civilisatrice.
Well, of course both French and British press could be gushing about Muhammed Ali’s “westernizing” reforms but his commercial practices were absolutely different issue:
“He has endeavoured to concentrate all the commerce of his country in his own hands; he forces the inhabitants to deliver up to him the produce of their fields and of their industry, at a very low price, which he again sells to merchants at double value. He has established commercial houses in the principle cities of Europe; but this system of commerce is too disadvantageous to foreign merchants to have it last long.”
Obviously, one can’t remain darling for long when he is putting your own merchants at a disadvantage and keeps all profits to himself.
Well, neither could Russia.
In Britain the Russophobic party was quite vocal. “Russia was most inimical to us; while Turkey, on the contrary, admitted our productions with no duty, or with a nominal duty.” (Lord Stuart). Of course, one could object that Britain still had the Corn Laws but when it comes to the trade who cares about being objective? For Stuart, Russia taking control of the Ottoman Empire would not only enhance Russia and cripple Britain’s trade, but it would also inevitably lead to a Russian takeover of Persia, and from Persia Russia could directly threaten Britain’s interests in India. Geographic realities were neither here nor there and what became the favorite British paranoia had been born. The Sultan became a poor oppressed darling and previously glorified battle of Navarino turned to be “most injurious and disgraceful to England”. The Times was preaching a joined British-French intervention in Syria against Egypt for the sake of the Syrians and the sake of the Ottoman Empire stating that “Mehemet Alli will readily yield to all the reasonable demands of England”. There was also a reasonably vocal pro-Ali faction which argued that he “never be the friend of Russia unless forced to become so by the policy of England towards him.”
Of course, there was also an anti-Ottoman faction which considered the OE weak and falling apart with Muhammed Ali doing everybody a favor by trying to break it apart.
One of the most strident British pro-Egypt agitators was Thomas Waghorn, the chief advocate of the through-Egypt route to India.
“Our governments have assisted and upheld the interests of Turkey till she is fallen so low that it is impossible to reestablish her in power as a nation; let us, therefore, study our true welfare, and take the lead in permitting Egypt to establish herself as an independent state.”
In general, French opinions more closely followed those of the British anti-Ottomans. French policy was based not on a belief in the potential of Ottoman reform but instead in a belief in the potential of Muhammad Ali’s rule in Egypt. The Ottoman Empire on the other hand was portrayed in France largely as a moribund state, led by incompetents who were unable to stop the decline, or who were perhaps even exacerbating it.
La Presse saw the question of the through-Egypt route as linked with the ‘Orient question,’ and published a long letter on the subject from the former surgeon of Muhammad Ali, M. Labat, which started with “French political and commercial interests are intimately linked with those of Egypt.”
Well, to a certain degree they were but not necessarily in the ways anticipated by Muhammed Ali. He managed to turn Egypt into a major cotton producer. Using the money from this cotton production, Ali's government then began to sponsor factories so that Egypt could profit from its own industrialization. These factories processed cotton into clothing—beginning with the uniforms for the new military—but also produced foods and some other goods. But, with the friends he chose, one really did not need the enemies. Of course, one of the problems was a lack of coal, which forced Egyptian manufactures to rely upon the animal power. However, even a bigger problem was that the chosen friends also made cloth and didn't want the competition. Britain and France had put tariffs on imported cloth in order to help their own industries. This meant Egypt could not sell to them at a competitive price. But these countries had also forbidden the Ottoman Empire, and hence Egypt, from putting tariffs on European goods. Egyptian factories just could not match their low prices and within years they were out of business and Egypt was facing fast growing trade deficit with a resulting state debt.
Russia. In Russia the British and French reaction was somewhat unexpected. The Black Sea was the Russian and Ottoman lake and neither British nor French business. Well, besides the business, of course: Odessa was the biggest international port on the Black Sea and nobody was harming the merchant ships of any nation. However, the signal was properly understood, conclusions made and, plans prepared and put to the execution.
As the first step, an old plan for connecting by a railroad Moscow and the Crimea, proposed to Alexander I in 1820 [1], was finally approved and construction started. It took 4 years to build two roads: one going through the Perekop and another, by dam and bridge, across Siwash.
Unexpected winner was city of Simferopol. According to the original plan, the railway was to pass a few dozen kilometers from Simferopol. But the city authorities, not wanting to miss such a profitable opportunity, provided land for construction free of charge. As a result, the railway slightly changed the planned route and passed along the western swampy outskirts of Simferopol. Thanks to the railway, real industrial enterprises appear in the city, huge opportunities for the use of local resources are opening up. Even before the industrial plants kicked in, the first such enterprise was a branch of the famous Moscow confectionery factory "Einem".
John Ericsson was asked to review and present his old proposal regarding an ironclad armored battleship suitable for the coastal defense.
On a diplomatic front, two Bonaparte brothers had a private conversation result of which was a secret message sent by the Ambassador Bonaparte to the Consulate. The French government was assured that Russian Empire not only does not have any plans infringing upon the French interests but quite sympathetic to the French interests in Egypt seeing its own interests there exclusively in the area of grain exports. While, of course, Russia is not going to change its policy regarding the import tariffs on manufactured goods (and does not expect anything of the kind from France), the tariffs on the French wines (which Russia was importing in the large volumes) can be lowered if France reciprocates by lowering import tariffs on the Russian wheat. And there is one French manufactured item on which Russia is ready to drop import tariffs completely, the silk flowers [3].
No need to rush to any action, just consider the message.
____________
[1] https://www.thelatinlibrary.com/imperialism/readings/ferry.html
[2] OTL
[3] May sound as a joke but it was not. Production of the silk flowers for the dresses was a considerable industry with the products exported around the “civilized world”: France was dictating the fashions and the silk flowers, for quite a while, were the important part of a female attire. Of course, they could be done domestically but how can you compare them with the true French product (even if they look the same)? And Russia was a big consumer.
“The British aim was to erode the sovereignty of these venerable empires just enough to force their political and economic institutions to become more open. Too much interference threatened to produce political disintegration, economic instability, and a potentially dangerous power vacuum that might open the way for rival powers or force Britain to resort to costly formal annexation.”
T. Parsons
“In the area of economics, I am placing before you, with the support of some statistics, the considerations that justify the policy of colonial expansion, as seen from the perspective of a need, felt more and more urgently by the industrialized population of Europe and especially the people of our rich and hardworking country of France: the need for outlets [for exports]… We must say openly that indeed the higher races have a right over the lower races . . . .”
Jules Ferry, ‘On French colonial expansion’ [1]
“…the legal institutions the Europeans and Ottomans had established guaranteed the economic benefits the Europeans sought without them having to assume extensive and costly forms of control.”
J.D.Savage
“Why did the sun never set on the British Empire? Even God didn't trust the English in the dark.”
“Why are the Great Pyramids in Egypt? Because they were too heavy to carry to the British Museum.”
T. Parsons
“In the area of economics, I am placing before you, with the support of some statistics, the considerations that justify the policy of colonial expansion, as seen from the perspective of a need, felt more and more urgently by the industrialized population of Europe and especially the people of our rich and hardworking country of France: the need for outlets [for exports]… We must say openly that indeed the higher races have a right over the lower races . . . .”
Jules Ferry, ‘On French colonial expansion’ [1]
“…the legal institutions the Europeans and Ottomans had established guaranteed the economic benefits the Europeans sought without them having to assume extensive and costly forms of control.”
J.D.Savage
“Why did the sun never set on the British Empire? Even God didn't trust the English in the dark.”
“Why are the Great Pyramids in Egypt? Because they were too heavy to carry to the British Museum.”
Russian help in the negotiations between the Sultan and Muhammed Ali with a resulting Convention of Kütahya had been followed the Russian-Ottoman Treaty of Hünkâr İskelesi. Formally, this was a treaty of mutual defense with a provision that, in the case of war, the Ottoman Empire, instead of providing a military help, upon request of Russia, should close the Dardanelles to all foreign warships. The request was seemingly reasonable but the results proved otherwise.
To the various degrees Britain and France considered this treaty as an infringement on their existing and, equally important, potential future interests based upon an assumption that the Ottoman Empire is a legitimate zone of their, existing or not, imperial interests. Not that there was any obvious reason for the British or French warships to enter the Black Sea but wasn’t it a matter of principle?
Britain, France, Ottoman Empire and Egypt
This treaty added new fuel to the fire of the Ottoman decline narrative. The Ottoman Empire now seemed to many to have become a Russian vassal state. Both in France and Britain the governments had been blamed for being too timid.
France: “The Ottoman Empire had been ‘a long term ally of France, our faithful and inseparable ally,…. they were separated from us and fell under the protection of Russia”. Somehow it was forgotten that the French troops occupied territory of the “faithful … ally” and had been instrumental in taking it from him.
Britain: “Our economical reformers had been gratified. Our ministers had been praised for their carefulness of the public money. We had saved two millions. We had lost Turkey.” The obvious question how one can lost something he did not own was not asked.
Of course, by now the issue of the Ottoman Empire was closely linked to Egypt and the interests of these two entities had been incompatible posing a hard task of a choice for the French and British governments.
With all their differences, Britain and France easily figured out that “united European front” in Egypt is going to be, for a time being, the best way to achieve their goals because dealing with Muhammed Ali was not a simple issue. On the one hand, the European powers and their agents and merchants desired stability in governance from the existing local authorities. As such, Britain and France tried to both bolster and influence local elites in an attempt to earn benefits for their agents and merchants. On the other hand, informal European influence in Egypt could counterbalance the supposedly formal Ottoman imperial influence.
By establishing his own independent methods of contact with Europe, Muhammad Ali could bypass formal Ottoman power structures and negotiate directly with the British and French governments. Ali also discussed issues with the French and British consuls, and was open about his desires, especially his desires to keep Britain and France on his side. Yet, Ali was not always cooperative with British and French desires (which was extremely nasty of him) , and his independent trade and economic policies were a long-time sticking point with France and Britain. The same goes for his “imperialism”:
“In one sense the wali was caught up in a vicious circle. In order to force a recognition of his independence from both Ottomans and Europeans alike, he must needs overstep his boundaries and acquire an empire, thereby earning Ottoman and European enmity which inhibited his quest for independence.”
Of course, both European powers involved had a semi-religious belief that part of their mission is to civilize “the Orient” (which, among other considerations, will be good for business).
Francois Guizot thought that ‘wherever European and Christian civilisation establishes itself, there also France is bound to assume its place and exercise its own genius.’ In the minds of the French, as Muhammad Ali was helping to bring Egypt into the modern era, it would be only natural for Egypt to come closer to France, the most ‘advanced’ country. A prevailed ideology was that informal imperial relationships with overseas states could be preferable to colonial conquest and commercially more lucrative. Algeria, being something of an aberration, did not count except as the mission civilisatrice.
Well, of course both French and British press could be gushing about Muhammed Ali’s “westernizing” reforms but his commercial practices were absolutely different issue:
“He has endeavoured to concentrate all the commerce of his country in his own hands; he forces the inhabitants to deliver up to him the produce of their fields and of their industry, at a very low price, which he again sells to merchants at double value. He has established commercial houses in the principle cities of Europe; but this system of commerce is too disadvantageous to foreign merchants to have it last long.”
Obviously, one can’t remain darling for long when he is putting your own merchants at a disadvantage and keeps all profits to himself.
Well, neither could Russia.
In Britain the Russophobic party was quite vocal. “Russia was most inimical to us; while Turkey, on the contrary, admitted our productions with no duty, or with a nominal duty.” (Lord Stuart). Of course, one could object that Britain still had the Corn Laws but when it comes to the trade who cares about being objective? For Stuart, Russia taking control of the Ottoman Empire would not only enhance Russia and cripple Britain’s trade, but it would also inevitably lead to a Russian takeover of Persia, and from Persia Russia could directly threaten Britain’s interests in India. Geographic realities were neither here nor there and what became the favorite British paranoia had been born. The Sultan became a poor oppressed darling and previously glorified battle of Navarino turned to be “most injurious and disgraceful to England”. The Times was preaching a joined British-French intervention in Syria against Egypt for the sake of the Syrians and the sake of the Ottoman Empire stating that “Mehemet Alli will readily yield to all the reasonable demands of England”. There was also a reasonably vocal pro-Ali faction which argued that he “never be the friend of Russia unless forced to become so by the policy of England towards him.”
Of course, there was also an anti-Ottoman faction which considered the OE weak and falling apart with Muhammed Ali doing everybody a favor by trying to break it apart.
One of the most strident British pro-Egypt agitators was Thomas Waghorn, the chief advocate of the through-Egypt route to India.
“Our governments have assisted and upheld the interests of Turkey till she is fallen so low that it is impossible to reestablish her in power as a nation; let us, therefore, study our true welfare, and take the lead in permitting Egypt to establish herself as an independent state.”
In general, French opinions more closely followed those of the British anti-Ottomans. French policy was based not on a belief in the potential of Ottoman reform but instead in a belief in the potential of Muhammad Ali’s rule in Egypt. The Ottoman Empire on the other hand was portrayed in France largely as a moribund state, led by incompetents who were unable to stop the decline, or who were perhaps even exacerbating it.
La Presse saw the question of the through-Egypt route as linked with the ‘Orient question,’ and published a long letter on the subject from the former surgeon of Muhammad Ali, M. Labat, which started with “French political and commercial interests are intimately linked with those of Egypt.”
Well, to a certain degree they were but not necessarily in the ways anticipated by Muhammed Ali. He managed to turn Egypt into a major cotton producer. Using the money from this cotton production, Ali's government then began to sponsor factories so that Egypt could profit from its own industrialization. These factories processed cotton into clothing—beginning with the uniforms for the new military—but also produced foods and some other goods. But, with the friends he chose, one really did not need the enemies. Of course, one of the problems was a lack of coal, which forced Egyptian manufactures to rely upon the animal power. However, even a bigger problem was that the chosen friends also made cloth and didn't want the competition. Britain and France had put tariffs on imported cloth in order to help their own industries. This meant Egypt could not sell to them at a competitive price. But these countries had also forbidden the Ottoman Empire, and hence Egypt, from putting tariffs on European goods. Egyptian factories just could not match their low prices and within years they were out of business and Egypt was facing fast growing trade deficit with a resulting state debt.
Russia. In Russia the British and French reaction was somewhat unexpected. The Black Sea was the Russian and Ottoman lake and neither British nor French business. Well, besides the business, of course: Odessa was the biggest international port on the Black Sea and nobody was harming the merchant ships of any nation. However, the signal was properly understood, conclusions made and, plans prepared and put to the execution.
As the first step, an old plan for connecting by a railroad Moscow and the Crimea, proposed to Alexander I in 1820 [1], was finally approved and construction started. It took 4 years to build two roads: one going through the Perekop and another, by dam and bridge, across Siwash.
Unexpected winner was city of Simferopol. According to the original plan, the railway was to pass a few dozen kilometers from Simferopol. But the city authorities, not wanting to miss such a profitable opportunity, provided land for construction free of charge. As a result, the railway slightly changed the planned route and passed along the western swampy outskirts of Simferopol. Thanks to the railway, real industrial enterprises appear in the city, huge opportunities for the use of local resources are opening up. Even before the industrial plants kicked in, the first such enterprise was a branch of the famous Moscow confectionery factory "Einem".
John Ericsson was asked to review and present his old proposal regarding an ironclad armored battleship suitable for the coastal defense.
On a diplomatic front, two Bonaparte brothers had a private conversation result of which was a secret message sent by the Ambassador Bonaparte to the Consulate. The French government was assured that Russian Empire not only does not have any plans infringing upon the French interests but quite sympathetic to the French interests in Egypt seeing its own interests there exclusively in the area of grain exports. While, of course, Russia is not going to change its policy regarding the import tariffs on manufactured goods (and does not expect anything of the kind from France), the tariffs on the French wines (which Russia was importing in the large volumes) can be lowered if France reciprocates by lowering import tariffs on the Russian wheat. And there is one French manufactured item on which Russia is ready to drop import tariffs completely, the silk flowers [3].
No need to rush to any action, just consider the message.
____________
[1] https://www.thelatinlibrary.com/imperialism/readings/ferry.html
[2] OTL
[3] May sound as a joke but it was not. Production of the silk flowers for the dresses was a considerable industry with the products exported around the “civilized world”: France was dictating the fashions and the silk flowers, for quite a while, were the important part of a female attire. Of course, they could be done domestically but how can you compare them with the true French product (even if they look the same)? And Russia was a big consumer.
). As a result he was one of the richest people in the Republic.