International stance toward The French occupation of Algeria
1. The Ottoman Dynasty’s stance:The Ottoman Empire was engaged with the Greek revolution and Russian conflicts, which depleted its soldiers, and it was not permitted to assist Algeria. And it was content to attempt to settle the problem diplomatically, so it dispatched delegates to try to find a political solution and fix the situation, but its efforts were futile.
2. Western states’ stance:
France encountered minimal international resistance, backed by Algeria's reputation in the European community for piracy. Polignac took advantage of the situation and began presenting the French intervention in Algeria as eradicating the "pirates' nest" and "thieves' den." The campaign's goal was supposedly to bring Algerians from savagery to civilization. The March 10 letter in which Polignac notified the main nations of the campaign's decision is proof of this. He was able to get the backing of most European countries for the invasion through it, with only Britain and Spain opposing it.
Among the countries who backed France's assault against Algeria are the following:
Russia:
Russia did not consider the occupation to be an impediment because their concentration was on the Balkans, therefore Russia was the only country with a more favorable view toward the occupation. When the British embassy requested that Tsar Alexander I object to the project, they replied him that Russia had no objections to the campaign, in addition to the declaration made by the Russian Tsar to the British envoy "La Veroney" in July 1821, when he stated, "We, France, do not have to open the volcano from the Strait of Gibraltar to the Jordan and select what suits us, and in this regard, we can count not only on Russia's backing, but also on its serious and practical cooperation."
Austria:
Its posture was indifferent, neutral, and suffering from unstable internal conditions, therefore it had to back the French move with its allies Russia and Prussia. As she saw the French government's activity on the Algerian question, she paid close attention to the French campaign against Algeria. .
They also backed France up with one of the officers, "Frederic Slawarts Amburg," who took part in one of her skirmishes.
Despite his support for Britain's position and the stability of the European situation, Austria's Prime Minister is also "Metternich." In 1830, the July Revolution ousted Charles X's reign in France. Fearing the expansion of the revolution, the Austrian government raced to sign a defense pact with Russia and Prussia in order to preserve the current order.
Britain’ stance:
The British government was initially the most strident European opponent of the effort, seeking to retain its position as the Mediterranean's center of gravity. To address certain European nations' worries, the French government tried to build an adequate international environment to welcome the campaign endeavor. On February 4, 1830, Polignac announced to the Christian countries that French King Charles X had made decisions to abolish Christian slavery in the Maghreb countries, eliminate piracy along the African coast, restore freedom of navigation, flourish trade in the Mediterranean basin, and abandon the royalties offered to the Dey government in Algeria by European countries. Despite this purported human tinge, Wellington expressed his dread of this remark on February 12th, declaring: "Everything authorized to be done in Algeria should have no more effects than our bombing of Algiers in 1816" As a result, King Charles X ordered a response to the English anxieties, which came as follows: The fact that the monarch avenges his honor in proportion to his people's dignity is not driven by personal desire. If he gains control of Algeria's prosecution, he will make an agreement with his European friends regarding the country's destiny. By constructing a governance in it that is more civilized, understanding, and in accordance with Christianity and Christians, but (ie, the king). He does not consider himself capable of any other endeavor that is incompatible with France's dignity and benefits.
The British adopted a clearly opposed attitude, but it was one that did not bring them to the point of an armed threat, possibly because of collaboration between the troops of the English and French parties in the defeat of the Ottoman and Algerian fleets in Navarino 1827. In addition, Lord "Aberdeen" requested that the Duke "Dulaval" refrain from extending France's expansionist activities to the limits of the Vatican City of Tunis and Tripoli, and pledged to handle the disagreement on its own. In reality, this final remark plainly demonstrates Britain's deterioration on the French occupation of Algeria. As a result, the English government has openly approved to France's active participation in Algeria, particularly when France handed them the Suez Canal project.
Spain’ stance:
Although Spain was jealous of France because they may succeed in what Spain had failed to do in numerous previous centuries. Spain thus had misgivings about the invasion since some of its political and military circles believed it had the right to seize the Oran sector of Algeria due to its past presence in Oran and the Great Marina for about three centuries. Its relationship with a lucrative commercial arrangement with Algeria and its desire to preserve good ties with Britain did not prevent it from enabling the French navy to use the Balearic Islands as a base in the backdrop of European public opinion lobbying for the invasion process. By chartering Spanish merchant ships to the French government to fund the campaign, despite the fact that the officials in these nations did not place much reliance on what Polignac claimed in his letter. The latter suggested that the campaign's goal was disciplinary rather than regional change in the Mediterranean basin, as seen by Metternich's response on the news, "We will not offer more than forty thousand soldiers to die, and waste more than a million francs because of a fly of whisk."
Prussia’ stance:
Prussia did not resist France's idea and proclaimed its support for it, especially after learning of Russia's consent. Bernstorf urged Bokianetti, the Russian consul in Alexandria, to convince Sara Mohammad Ali that Prussia had authorized the organized campaign proposal. He also assured France that he would back its concept at the Sublime Porte.
The goal of this program was to distract France's focus away from the Rhine area and toward other regions far from Europe, and it also offered the services of its officers to France in response to pressure from its ally Russia.
Other countries’ stance:
Sweden, Sardinia, Denmark, the Netherlands, and the United States of America are among the remaining European countries, who had no different stance than the previous states. As they provided financial and personal assistance to the campaign, as well as Pope Pius in Rome allowing France to use its ports, and the Kingdoms of Naples and Sicily, whose monarch, François I, authorized merchants to supply the French army with the ships they required.
3. The Arab countries’ stance:
Except for the Eyelet of Libya, the Maghreb countries' response to France's takeover of Algeria was unfavorable. Some Maghreb kings engaged in horrific deals with the French over Algeria.
First. Tunisia:
The Tunisian government, not the people, took a different stance, since its officials, unlike the people, backed French assault. Tunisia's leadership chose a dishonorable stance regarding France's occupation of Algeria. It cooperated with France in the invasion of Algeria and provided the French with the required facilities at a time when they were supposed to stand by Algeria in opposing French assault. They halted the smuggling of gunpowder from Tabarka to Constantine, and the Bey of Tunis backed the French takeover of Algeria and congratulated the campaign leader on his win.
Tunisia's hostile attitude stems from the two nations' strained ties before the campaign. Long conflicts raged between them until the Ottoman Empire intervened in 1821. "And when the firmans and messengers arrived to the princes of the two kingdoms, then peace was reached, and all Muslims cheered and were delighted that this rebellion would be extinguished," Al-Zahar said about this mediation.
The French consul's actions in Tunisia were robust and coordinated with campaign devices, spies and negotiators had penetrated Constantine and Annaba, looking for loopholes and isolating the provincial government from the public. The French were known to have commercial and even military interests in Annaba and Collo. The aid also fulfilled the terms of the treaty of December 18, 1830, which indicated that it came to fill the hole created by Bey Oran. On February 4, 1831, Clozel reached an arrangement with the Bey of Tunis to bring Oran under Tunisian protectorate in exchange for a fee that Tunisia would pay to the occupying authority. "The rulers of Tunisia were unfair to the French, and they got progressively close to them whenever they dreaded the destruction of their monarchy at the hands of the Turks, without thinking about the inevitable doom that awaited them, nor what the responsibility of Islamic solidarity and the right of neighborhood and brotherhood demanded to free Algeria from the clutches of French colonialism," one contemporary writer says.
When France assumed Tunisia would not intervene in the Algerian situation, it sought to scare the Ottoman Empire, so it dispatched a portion of its fleet to the port of La Goulette, headed by Admiral "Rosmal," and used this armed threat to put pressure on the Bey of Tunis, who signed the agreement of 08 August 1830.
Morocco’ stance:
Morocco too had a negative attitude about the occupation. The Sultan, "Moulay Abderrahmane," remained neutral, as did his people in Algeria. This quiet is attributable, on the one hand, to his avoidance of military action with France, and, on the other, to the cooling of ties between him and Algeria's leadership. Second, when the Moroccan Sultan Moulay Abderrahmane begged for aid to oust the French, Dey Hussein remained neutral, and before France invaded Algeria, they asked its consul in Tangiers "Dulaport" to notify the Moroccan sultan about his objectives in Algeria. The consul contacted Moroccan officials and informed them of the campaign's goals for his nation. He used the opportunity to implore Moroccans to assist the French fleet and French people seeking sanctuary in Morocco. The Sultan's reaction to his country's non-intervention in the Algerian situation was favorable. The Moroccan Sultan also urged the Moroccan customs administration to permit the supply of the French navy on the condition that he pay customs taxes.
The Moroccan sultan defends his help to the French government by claiming that he created a plan to demolish the dey government, but that the French government did it first. As a result, the Moroccan attitude shifted as France tightened its grip on Algeria and began encroaching on Moroccan territory. The proof for this is that when the notables of Tlemcen invited him to pledge allegiance to him and come into his authority twice, in August and September 1830, Sultan Moulay Abderrahman reacted by sending one of his relatives, Mawla Ali, to be his successor in Tlemcen 1831.
"His eyes were fixated on the Algerian campaign, and the news of the collapse of the city of Algiers had the biggest impact on the Moroccans, since it drove the Moroccans to worry," wrote the French vice-consul in Morocco.
· Libya’ stance:
Libya was the only country that did not help or ease the French invasion of Algeria. This is corroborated by a letter written to Dey Hussein on May 7, 1830 by Tripoli's ruler, "Youssef bin Ali Pasha" Al-Faramani. Historians attribute this to Tripoli's inability to provide aid to Algeria, as well as the difficulties faced by the ruler Youcef bin Ali Al-Faramani, which manifested itself in the outbreak of revolutions in various Libyan regions from 1806 to 1830 as a result of the tax policy that burdened the population. And to the menace of European ships capable of launching the lines of piracy in 1819, and then, what followed, the bitter struggle between the two kingdoms of Sardinia (1825-1826).
Despite this, Libyans kept up with Algeria closely. Mr. Wellington, the British Consul in Libya, reported that the news of the French seizure of Algiers had provoked worry and wrath among Tripoli's Muslim populace on July 26, 1830. On August 11, 1830, Libya forced an unequal treaty on the Tripoli government as a result of its antagonistic stance against the annexation of Algeria. It dispatched a navy to it to persuade its monarch to apologize and deliver satisfactions.
This blockade has revealed the realities of both European and Arab countries. Despite the fact that England, like Austria, rejects its status as a rival to France. Algeria has the option of lifting the siege if you do not make an effective decision. The English soldiers stationed in the Mediterranean's bases were willing and able to assist Algeria, just as they aided Egypt in 1798. They did not, however, and instead relied only on political resistance. Then there are the North African nations: Egypt, Tunisia, and the Far Maghreb did not back Algeria because their limited vision led them to support their expansionist objectives at the expense of Algeria. They have forgotten that they will suffer the same destiny. Algeria, the walled fortress that had always guarded them, fell into the hands of colonialism, and it was a precursor to European colonial development in the area that ended up spreading its control over every country. France seized Tunisia and Morocco, while Italy seized Tripoli.
