The Maghreb region has been referred to as “The land of the sun set” stretching across North Africa from the borders of Egypt towards the Atlantic Coast covering the states of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Libya.

At the eve of the French occupation of the Maghreb states, they were under the control of the Ottoman empire.  The French occupation of Algeria in 1830 became the beginning of European imperialism in the Maghreb states for as many scholars concur, the French occupation of Algeria determined events in other Maghreb states as one writer remarked;

“The French invasion of Algeria wasn’t a landmark in the history of Algeria but the entire North West African states”.

ALGERIA

Algeria was initially under the rule of the Ottoman empire led by a “Dey” who was appointed by a Turkish governor whose duties included collection of taxes, maintenance of law and order and enforcing the powers of the Governor.  The Northern African states occupied by different races like the Jews, Arabs and most important the native Barbers who were further divided  according to religious sects or factions like the Hanafites who were dorminantly Turkish and the Malikites who comprised of mainly the Arabs and Berbers.

It was therefore the year of 1830 that became a turning point in Algerian history and other Maghreb states because it marked the beginning of European imperialism in N.W. African states.

The French occupation of Algeria in 1830 has been explained by a number of factors and events and these include the fact that France had already been economically interested in Algeria a relationship that traces its way as far back as the Napoleonic days when Algeria supplied wheat and olive oil to the French troops both in Italy and Egypt.  This relationship was continued even during the Days of Louis XVIII who equally developed commercial relations with the Deys of Algeria for he signed treaties and exchanged goods between the two countries such that by the time of Charles X, the relationship was already in it’s mature stages and Charles X only exploited the situation in his favour.

Furthermore, the 1830’s were a period of the European scramble, balancing of power, exploitation and trade such that France especially with her growing imperialism in the Mediterranean sea was no exception.

The religious conflicts against the Turkish rulers were an opportunity exploited by France that claimed to be a liberator of the Christian flock particularly the catholic who claim they were being persecuted by the Islamic Ottoman empire.

The above was precipitated by the French desire to settle their surplus unemployed population especially after the revolutionary wars and the Napoleonic era when many people had been left unemployed because of the destruction of infrastucture and the consequent decline in industrial production.  It’s from this basis that the French came and occupied Algeria in 1830.

It’s also argued that the French wanted to create a French empire in Northern Africa purposely to compensate for the losses she had incurred in the Vienna congress of 1815 whereby the only solution was imperialism in Africa thus she opted to occupy Algeria.

The French also claimed that they occupied Algeria because they wanted to suppress the Algeria pirates whom they claimed did disrupt their commercial relations such that there was intended to be a short campaign purely for the suppression of piracy in the mediterranean sea.  Although to many scholars the likes of Oliver Roland and Atmore,  the claim by the French to suppress piracy and the flywhisk incident were mere excuses or scapegoats only intended to divert the attention of the French population from the unpopular reign of Charles X.

In conclusion to the above therefore, it’s vital to note that by 1830, Charles X a man who had attempted to rewind the clock backwards to the pre-1789 era had already lost support at home and only wanted to regain foreign glory through conquests and this explains the French occupation of Algeria.

It’s therefore a combination of the above factors that the French government posted Deval a man of less ability as a French consul in Algeria and given the mission to disrupt the Dey’s administration by conspiring with European financiers notably the Jews and merchants in order to render Dey Hussein’s economy bankrupt and subsequently force him to accept French imperialism.  This state of affairs began to bring  antagonism between the French consul and the Dey and the climax of which came on 29th April 1827 when the Dey picked a quarrel with Deval over the supply of grain to France.  Dey Hussein got furious and struck the French consul with a fly whisk in the face in what scholars have come to refer to as the “fly-whisk incident”.

This incident was exploited by the French as an opportunity to march their forces into Algeria which they concentrated at Algiers and finally occupied  the country in 1830.

N.B      The flywhisk incident cannot be taken as a cause of the French occupation but only a spark that    set the fires of French imperialism ablaze.

Therefore what can be said is that the French occupation of Algeria like the occupation of any other African state was largely precipitated by imperialistic motives, economic, social and political for example it can be said that the French wanted to establish their influence on the shores of the Mediterranean sea and in the heart of Asia, this can rightly be evident in the words of Polignac then the chief Minister

“To establish French influence on the shores of the Mediterranean Sea and to have a right in the heart of Asia”.

Similarly, the Minister of war Gen. Gerald advanced an economic view justifying the conquest of Algeria

“The need to open up a vast outlet for surplus population and for our manufactured products in return for their products foreign to our soil and climate”.

Lastly, Louis Philippe who came in a few weeks declared

      “It was the French intention to found an important colony in Algeria”. 

With the above historical evidences, the French claims over suppression of piracy and the flywhisk incident can rightly be disqualified as mere scapegoats used by the French schools of thought to justify French occupation of Algeria as Oliver Roland and Atmore conclude

“The French invasion and occupation of Algeria was indeed the most unprincipled and ill-considered act of the whole of the 19th Century mainly to divert the attention of the French people from the disgruntled       and unpopular reigns of Louis XVIII and Charles X”.

Following the French occupation of Algeria, attempts were made by the inhabitants to regain their independence but all in vain for the French were determined to fully occupy the regions of Algeria and the rest of the Maghreb states.  In this regard therefore, the French did encourage settlement of European colonialists like the wealthy investors as a way of consolidating their authority such that by 1889, there were 2,500 whites in Algeria and by 1912 there were 800,000 in number.  In this way, it became difficult for the inhabitants to claim authority within their own mother place.

Furthermore, the Berbers were denied ownership of fertile lands as a way of forcing them to submit to French  Generals as one colonialist put it;

“Colonisation should imply submission of the Berbers which is genuine”.

This in addition saw the loss of plantations, property and ownership of houses as many of the Berbers were made squatters.

Attempts by the native Berbers to resist did worsen the whole situation for as soon as the French defeated them using the Scorched earth policy, they took over all the responsibilities rendering the Berbers foreigners in their own land such that the French even strove to replace the local culture with theirs because they believed their culture was superior and was the only way to make the local people loyal to them for example the Islamic law which was typical of the native Berbers was suspended and replaced with the French code; similarly the Traditional Muslim judges or Quadis were replaced by the French judiciary system.

Like elsewhere, the French attempted to use assimilation as a policy through which they could consolidate themselves but this registered limited success partly because of the influence of Islam but also the European settlers who didn’t want to be equal to the  Algerian natives.

Like any other colonialists, the French regarded the Berbers as having been backward and uncultured a belief that they used in excluding the Berbers from administration such that the key posts and positions in government were all left in the hands of the white colonialists as Jules Ferry the French premier rightly put it

“The muslims have no notion of political mandate or of authority ... they know nothing of a representative reign”.

The usage of white colonialists to run the affairs of the Algerian natives was one way through which the French consolidated themselves.

In addition, the French did establish schools and attempted to teach the French curriculum as a way of producing their own sympathisers they also built churches and converted some Algerians to Christianity as the only way of effective control.

Economically the French improved communication systems  like road railway port and other form of infrastructure such as hospital research centres all that worked to improve the conditions of Algerian population who gave  them the support that assisted them to consolidate their authority till the later  period of 1914.

Lastly the  French occupation and the subsequent consolidation  became a landmark not only to Algeria but even the rest of the MAGHREB states for fear of the imperialistic powers and the determination of the ottoman empire or the  Muslim flock to overthrow French  imperialism  in Algeria  as later evident in the occupation of Tunisia and  Morocca.

TUNISIA

Like Algeria, Tunisia is situated in the Northern part of Africa often referred to in the Arabic as the “Maghreb” region bordered by Libya in S. East, Algeria in the West however like the latter, Tunisia had been under dominance of the Ottoman empire.  Since the end of the 16th Century although later it was put under the  Husseinic dynasty led Bey’s among whom included Mohammed, Bey, Ahmed Bey and Mohammed-el-Saliq Bey.

Like many African states save Liberia and Ethiopia.  Tunisia didn’t escape European lmperialism as evident in April 1881 when the French  invaded and occupied Tunisia after signing the treaty of Bardo.

A number of factors have been advanced to account  for Tunisia’s loss of  independence to French imperialism and among  these include the poor administration of the reign of Mohammed Bey 1855-59 which witnessed the initial stages of the  financial crisis in Tunisia  for like the Egyptian ruler Khedive Ismail, Mohammed greatly depended on International debts from European countries notably Britain, Germany and greatly France  which he  later failed to pay off paving way for the French intervention in Tunisian affairs.

In the same way, Mohammed-Al-Sadek  Bey in addition to borrowing from European leaders had poor relations with European countries especially when he attempted to re-introduce slave trade which by this time was outlived among the European power which therefore provoked the French and British consuls to favour European occupation of  Tunisia as the only way they could fight the administration of Saliq Bey.

Furthermore, the leadership of Mohammed Al-Sadek was also characterised by the oppression of Masses whereby the people were denied freedom of expression, worship as evident in the event of 24th July 185 7 when a jew called Samuel Sfez  suffered a death sentence on minor  charges of  uttering abusive words against  Islam something that greatly angered the British and French consuls notably Richard Wood and  Leon Roches who regarded this incident as a great threat to European nationals in Tunisia although he was compelled  to reform the judicial system, the European consuls weren’t satisfied and to them the only solution  was to encourage the French to occupy Tunisia.

 The administration of Mohammed-Al-Sadek was worsened by the intense corruption during the time of the prime minister Khaznadour which created a lot of economic bankrupcy, forced the government to tax the masses heavily alongside borrowing from the European countries especially France.  It was therefore the failure of governments to pay off the debts of European money leaders that the European countries set up a financial commission a composition of Britain, France and Italy whose main duty was to interfere in Tunisia finances.  Although Khaznadar withdrew from the political scene, the formation of this commission was the beginning of the loss of Tunisia’s independence as Assa  Okoth observes “The setting up of a financial  commission was an important step to the erosion of Tunisians’ economic independence”.

The worst was to come at the resignation of Khar-al-Din as prime minister in 1877 a man who had taken over from Khaznadour and had greatly defended the independence of Tunisia especially among the French who he refused to grant concessions to build ports along Tunisia borders. This did greatly assist in protecting the independence of Tunisia however following his resignation it became a landmark in paving way for the French intervention as one scholar rightly confirms “Thus Khar-al-Din had done much to bring back pride to a state that his predecessor had looted and raped.  His exit from leadership was unfortunate”.

The greatest of these events was the first  Berlin  conference of 1878 when the great powers gave a free hand to France to occupy Tunisia especially at the hands of Otto Von Bismarck who after the Franco-Prussian war embarked on his isolation policy against France and therefore encouraged her to acquire colonies in Africa in compensation for Alsace and Lorraine.  This move was equally supported by the other European powers like Britain because she expected France to recognise her occupation of the Island of Cyprus.  Under similar circumstances Italy occupied Tripoli and therefore this became one of the major events that led to French occupation of Tunisia.

Lastly, the European powers begun to clash over Tunisia for economic and strategic motives and it was only a question of opportunity which came on 31st March 1881 when the Khrumir tribesmen staged a Skirmish revolt in Algeria territory which was by this time under France and this incident was over exaggerated by the French who dispatched the French forces and instead of attacking the offenders, the French army only headed for Tunis, took over the administration of the Beys and forced them to sign the treaty of Bardo of 1881 which marked the end of Tunisia independence.

Following the French conquest of Tunisia, the treaty of Bardo 1881 was signed which established to what amounted to the French protectorate over Tunisia in otherwords it allowed the French troops to occupy Tunisia until such a time when the two were satisfied that there would be law and order in Tunisia.

The finances and foreign policy were put under the control of the French. This treaty was later reinforced by the treaty of Ha-Marsa 1883 which gave the French control over the internal affairs of Tunisia therefore by 1883 the French occupation of Tunisia wasn’t that of a military.  Conquest but that of a protectorate.  It therefore remained in the hands of the French to lay a foundation for the consolidation of their authority in Tunisia first by making the local subjects accept their rules and in this way, the French used gradual infiltration largely relying on the support of the traditional rulers without necessarily using force to change their social life styles as was the case in Algeria where the French had met grave resistance.

The French employed the policy of power replacement for although some rights were left to the traditional set-ups, most government departments by 1884 had been put under the French leadership such that key positions like finance, foreign affairs were run by the French officials and indeed the powers of  the Beys were reduced through creation of the office of the prime minister who held executive powers in the administration of the office of internal affairs.  This was later replaced by the secretary general who was a French man by nationality.

The French accepted to co-exist with the local population of the natives for they realised that assimilation among the Islamic dominated community wasn’t feasible and this greatly won them support of the local population which enabled them to consolidate their authority up to 1914.

Economically, the economy of Tunisia had suffered financial crisis and bankruptcy; however during the French administration, communication systems were improved in terms of roads, railways, ports and other areas of infrastucture like agriculture research institutes, new system of land registration as a means of good land usage and this reduced conflicts between settlers and the local people and indeed led to the economic development that won them the support and sympathy of the middle class most of whom were absorbed into the European standards of life.

Little wonder therefore that the French were able to consolidate themselves up to the later years of 1914.

Socially, the French established school systems, introduced a western education curriculum, put up schools, vocational institutions all of which reduced the level of illiteracy and led to the Franco-Arab development in Tunisia.

In all therefore, despite the interference’s from the European countries and the sultan of the Turkish empire, the French had by 1914 greatly consolidated their positions in Tunisia although they failed to assimilate the Arab natives because of their traditional social, historical and cultural background that was predominantly Islamic.

MOROCCO

Morocco is geographically located at the extreme North of West Africa in a mountain country greatly inhabited by the Berbers and Arabs like Tunisia, Morocco by the second half of 19th Century had become a hunting ground for the European powers such as France, Britain, Italy, Germany etc until 1912 when Morocco was to finally fall prey to European imperialism.

The loss of Moroccan independence like that of Tunisia was a gradual process generating from a number of factors internal and external.

It’s vital to note that the second half of 19th Century was the climax of the age of European imperialism that witnessed various European powers develop interest in the colonisation of Morocco for example

Britain, Italy, Spain and France.  However in the case of the latter, she had by that time already occupied Algeria (1830) and Tunisia (1881) such that it was her concern to fight the influence of the Sultan in Morocco and establish effective control over the desert region.  It’s therefore partly from this basis that the French occupation of Algeria greatly influenced the events in Tunisia and Morocco.

Likewise, Britain wanted Morocco purely for strategic reasons to guard her interests in the Mediterranean Sea and protect her trade in the far East.  

Meanwhile Germany by this time wanted to challenge France in Morocco and this later led to the famous Agadi’s crisis a time when France almost wanted to go to war with European powers over the occupation of Morocco.  This was only solved by the Anglo-Franco treaty of 1904 when France was given a mandate to occupy Morocco and in exchange France recognised Briatain’s occupation of Egypt.

Domestically, the history of Morocco was characterised by rival disputes especially during the administration of King Hassan Mauley when a number of people rebelled against his administration a similar situation did face the reign of Abdel Aziz and this rivalry created political instability in Morocco, disunity among the people a situation that was exploited by the European powers to take over the independence of Morocco.

Economically, although king Hassan Mouley had tried to modernize the economy by creating a financial base, his successor Abdell Aziz lacked sense of financial judgment for his government was characterized by extravagance, poor planning, economic bankruptcy a situation that was exploited by European powers to occupy Morocco.

Closely related, Aziz attempted to go for European loans which he didn’t afford to pay back and therefore like in Tunisia, a joint financial commission was formed to take over the economy of Morocco and this laid a foundation for the loss of her economic independence.

Furthermore, the rulers who came after Hassan Mouley were politically inexperienced, corrupt, short sighted and therefore failed to understand the intentions of European powers for they allowed many European businessmen, bankers, merchants to invest in Morocco.  This greatly undermined the Moroccan independence and it was only a question of opportunity that Morocco lost her independence and this rightly came when the Muslims in Morocco declared a Jihad against the Jewish Christians and this seemed to include some of the French and Italian citizens.

The French therefore took this opportunity to dispatch a military garrison from Algeria to occupy the strategic positions in Morocco claiming to liberate Christians from the Islamic persecution.  It’s this incident that historians have referred to as the Casablanca incident for the French forces occupied the straits of Casablanca thus providing an opportunity for the French to occupy Morocco which in 1912 was declared a protectorate.

It’s however important to note that the French occupation of the subsequent states like Tunisia and Morocco was largely determined by her occupation of Algeria in 1830 partly because of the fear of the imperialistic powers to take over the sister states thus interfering with Algeria.

Closely related, in order for France to consolidate herself against the Ottoman empire, she had to occupy sister states for fear of Islamic influence in the affairs of Algeria.

Some Arab and Berber refugees who had run from Algeria in 1830 had taken refuge in Morocco and Tunisia and were bound to be a source of trouble for the French leadership in Algeria hence the French had to occupy the sister Maghreb states as a way of consolidating their positions.

Independent positions of Tunisia and Morocco lay side by side of the French occupation of Algeria which was now at stake such that it was only a question of time for the French to inevitably take over Morocco and Tunisia.

The Christians in Morocco and Tunisia begun to go against the leadership of the Ottoman empire because they were sure they would have the support of France.  This can rightly be  evident from the support given to the nationalists to resist against French imperialism for example Abdel Kadar was supported by Morocco to make attacks on the French in Algeria.

Lastly it’s argued that to France, Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia were not only separated by artificial boundaries but also shared a lot in common in terms of culture, linguistics and religion and they therefore all had to be brought under common control.  It’s therefore from the above circumstances that one scholar has rightly put it “The French invasion of Algeria was not only a landmark in the history of Algeria but also the entire Maghreb states”.

The French occupation of Algeria intensified the scramble for Morocco, Tunisia and Libya sincethe other Europeans realised the weakness of the Ottoman empire and they also wouldn’t want the French to control the whole coast.

French realised potential in Algeria was likely to be in other Maghreb states and the desire to fan an empire grew.

LIBYA

Libya is part of the Maghreb states bordered by the Mediterranean Sea (North) Egypt (East), Sudan (S.E) and Chad + Niger (South), one of the poorest and weakest of the Maghreb states, a composition of the loose groupings that included among others Cyrenaince, Tripolitania, Fezzan, all under the Karamali dynasty whose leadership included among others Yusuf Karamali Ali Posha among others.

It was indeed one of the last Maghreb states to fall prey to European Imperialism, considering that France had already made occupation of Algeria and Tunisia.  The concern of many scholars therefore is to trace the background to the loss of Libya’s independence which seems to rewind itself as far back as the 1830’s when Italy began to dream of establishing a Roman empire in Northern Africa.  This however had remained a myth which was later to become a reality in 1911.

A number of factors have been advanced to explain the reality and among these include, the fact that by 1911, most of the Maghreb region had fallen prey to Euro colonialism such that, Libya was no exception.  This state of affairs was climaxed by long time disappointment of Italy in the colonial race, for instance, as far back as 1838, Italy had made attacks on colonial territories in Northern Africa but had never succeeded.  In 1888, she attempted to acquire Cyprus but was frustrated by Britain.

Similarly, in 1896, she attempted to occupy Ethiopia but was frustrated and humiliated by the small African state under the leadership of Menelik.

The climax of which was in 1881, when Italy lost Tunisia to France and therefore with all this humiliation and her frustrated dream of creating an empire in North Africa, Italy was to act like a wounded buffalo to make the occupation of Libya as the only alternative, the reality that was in 1911.

It’s also argued that the strategic location of Libya, firstly the proximity of Libya to the Italian controlled islands in the Mediterranean Sea and having a close connection with the trade links of Britain, largely affected her independence because of the fact that Britain had for a long time monopolized the trade in the Mediterranean region.

Closely related, Libya’s nearest (propinquity) to the Italian territories of sicily, contributed to her loss of independence in the sense that she provoked the desire by Italy to consolidate her position by creating an extensive Roman Northern Empire which would help her have influence in controlling the African continent using Libya as here base.

This state of affairs was aggravated by the developments of the Pan Islamic movements in Libya or the rise of the Turkish revolution which came in 1908 as a result of the Italian Christian influence many of whom had purchased land for settlement and exploitation, had began to control the internal affairs of Libya and the worst of which was interfering with the Muslim doctrines particularly of the Sinnusiyya brotherhood, who declared a war against the Italian influence.  It was this situation that forced the Italians to resort to violent approach to counter-act the reaction of the young Turkish movement and indeed it was the conclusion of the revolution on the 15th October 1912 that finally witnessed the end of Libya’s independence because the Italians had occupied the major ports for example Tripoli, Benghazi, Danna, Tubruque and Khum.

Libya’s independence was also undermined by the Berlin conference (1884-85), in which the theory of effective occupation was confirmed and considering that Italy had already made developments in Libya in infrastructure, medic-services, post offices, banks, the economy, controlled trade, she was therefore a suitable candidate to occupy Libya.

Libya being politically and militarily backward, was really a motivating force to Italy who was not as experienced in the colonial race.

Libya lost her independence out of motivation by Euro powers for example Britain, France, Austria, German especially after the unification of Italy.  She was therefore blest to occupy Libya after all other powers seemed comfortable in the colonial field. for example Britain had already settled in Cyprus, France was at home in Tunisia and of all cases in the northern Italian states of Lombardy and Venetia, and needless to mention O.V.Bismarck in his politic gymnastics wanted to clash France and Italy.

It’s therefore the combination of the above factors that following, the conclusion of the Turkish revolution, Italy finally make an occupation of Libya.  This therefore marked the climax of the era of imperialism in the Maghreb region.