At the end of the first half of the XVIII and XIX century. in the western Mediterranean Sea armed clashes between the United States and North African countries: Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco and Tripoli. In American historiography of these collisions are usually loud referred to as "wars for freedom of navigation in the Mediterranean for all nations."
One may ask why the Americans took "restore order" in the sea, which lies thousands of kilometers from the coast of the United States of America and is washed, by the way, a number of strong ground of sovereign European states?
The study of this question is of some importance for the interpretation of the history of American capitalism and its predatory nature.
It is known that at the relevant time on the northern shores of Africa were located feudal despotism: Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, and Tripoli. In fact, they were independent, although all were, except Morocco, in the face of the Ottoman Empire.
One of the important sources of income of the local rulers were levying duties on trade ships of various countries, passing through the Straits of Gibraltar and visiting the Mediterranean. An influential role in the North African states played the corporation pirates, closely related to the beys, and sultans deyami governing these states.
Particularly willing to service the Pirates of North Africa used the advantage of the British bourgeoisie, which favored method was to fight the enemy by proxy.
Clashes between the United States on the one hand, Algeria and other North African countries, on the other coast — began soon after the conquest of American independence. Weak while in the navy against the United States along with other nations pay government fees and North Africa periodically brought all manner of gifts to their rulers.
Prior to independence, the British North American colonies American entrepreneurs trade with Mediterranean countries enjoyed the protection of the mother country, and had a rather large. At the end of the 70s of the XVIII century. more than 15% grain and 25% of fish products, as well as significant quantities of rice from the British possessions in North America were sent to the ports of the Mediterranean. These ports are visited annually by 80 to 100 American ships.
At the end of the XVIII century. Americans in particular have developed a thriving trade in the Mediterranean basin. The famous American naval theorist, Admiral Alfred Mahan, marking the expansion of British trade around the world in this period, pointed out that only in the Mediterranean Sea, a decrease of import and export of British goods, which is "partly offset by an enterprising American merchants …".
The British government immediately after the outbreak of the war for the independence of the North American colonies ceased to provide assistance and protection of American commerce entrepreneurs in the countries of the Mediterranean basin.
This worsened the situation of American shipping in the Mediterranean: the court of Americans without the involvement of British agents were subject to attack local pirates.
Meanwhile, for the United States in the late XVIII. And still more in the first half of the XIX century. trade with the countries of the Mediterranean coast was of great importance. It laid the foundation of the American economic penetration in China.
Not being able to due to opposition from the East India Company to export opium from India, American traders bought it in Turkey and to great advantage they sold in China, Indonesia and other Asian countries. In the ports of Asia Minor U.S. ships began to appear at the end of the XVIII century.
One of the first American millionaire, constituting their wealth by predatory trade with the countries of Asia and Africa, has been already mentioned above Philadelphia businessman C. Girard, who was in his home country the nickname "Lone Midas." His main occupation was the speculative trade in opium. Girard's agents were buying opium in Turkey, where they paid for 3 dollars per pound, while selling it in Cantonese market for as low as 7 to $ 10 per pound. Gain was thus 150-200%.
Having accumulated great wealth through criminal opium trade, Girard became engaged in banking. In 1813, he was considered the richest man in the United States.
By 1815, according to American researchers Baring Brothers in China to get at least a quarter million pounds of opium annually, a significant part — on ships owned by Girard. Girard's biographer X. Uilds, who studied his papers and bank documents, wrote that of Girard's "little effect," the desire of the Chinese government to put an end to the import of opium into the country. In 1820, Girard only one of the four vessels belonging to it sent 7.5 million pounds of the drug in a single trip by buying it at the price of $ 900 per box, which is sold in the future, for two thousand dollars
Along with Girard in a profitable opium trade was attended by many other businessmen of the United States of America. At the beginning of the XIX century. greed at the expense of the illegal opium trade in China and other countries caused a bitter rivalry between the capitalist "Dynasty" — Astors and Perkins. Boston firm Perkins sought to monopolize the extremely lucrative drug trade. Competing with him in the pursuit of profits, J. Astor in 1816 on the brig "Boxer" delivered to Canton purchased in Turkey opium, and the following year two of his vessel "Seneca" and "Macedonian" was brought there 135 pickles opium.
And the Astors and Perkins sought to expand the sources of opium. Their agents roamed everywhere in search of profitable cargo.
Utter disregard for the laws of the Chinese state, the violation of all principles of morality is quite justified from the point of view of American businessmen exceptionally high profits from the opium trade.
Karl Marx in his article "The opium trade" stigmatizes opiumotorgovtsev, to enrich the economic exhaustion of China as a result of pumping out silver and amassed huge money for poisoning the Chinese people. He emphasized the special importance held by the British East India Company opium smuggling in deie capitalist enrichment, capital accumulation. Marx wrote that Colonel Watson and Vice-President Wheeler, who "served the East India Company thought to start the opium trade with China," worthy "to take a seat next to Ermante, Palmer, and other world famous poisoners …".
American opiumotorgovtsev — Girard, Perkins, Astor and many others — it is possible to put on a par with Watson and Wheeler.
In American historiography shameful that violates all norms of humanity drug trade is seen as a normal trading activity.
In a long article by American historian Stelle "American opium trade in China to 1820" covers the early stages of the opium trade. The author notes that at the turn of XVIII-XIX centuries. The United States was able to almost to seize control of the opium markets Levant. This was favored by the fact that by this time the Americans had already settled in Smyrna, have created their own commercial offices here and in fact made by the government of the Ottoman empire extending to them the principle of "most favored nation". Certain value also had a monopoly on trade with China, are kept by the East India Company until 1833 that prevented the English private ship owners to carry opium to China.
"In 1805 — wrote C. Stelle — American merchants were able to use a virtual monopoly, which was provided by his policies of the East India Company … Opium was the subject of the recognized value in U.S. trade with Turkey … Some of the Turkish opium could be imported for own needs of the United States, but most of the opium is taken out from Smyrna to America, set off to China. "
According to the data given Stelle, Americans imported into Canton in 1805 102 Pikul Turkish opium, accounting for about 5.4 million kg in 1806 — 180 pickles (9.5 million kg) in 1807 — 150 pickles (about 8 million kg).
The increased importation of opium into China by Americans has caused concern by the British East India Company, and the Privy Council of Directors in the same 1807 offered its sales agents in Canton to take steps to obstruction of shipping back the "American opium," which competed with imported by this company Bengali drug.
However, its agents in China reported that the adoption of any measures against the American opium trade, through the Chinese government authorities impossible importation of the drug into the country and banned the use of repression inevitably spread to selling opium in Canton, which is delivered to the East India Company. In an effort to appease these conditions, the Privy Council of Directors, its agents in Canton wrote that the Turkish opium is inferior in quality Bengali, uses less demand, and often applies only to counterfeit Indian opium.
The Embargo Act in 1808 led to a reduction of all U.S. trade with China, including the importation of opium, but after it was canceled purchases of Turkish opium for export to China have increased more. Especially a lot of the drug taken from Smyrna visited here in 1810, American ships "Ekspekteyshn" and "RESOLUTION".
In the Ottoman Empire at that time began to create American trading houses. For example, in 1811, was founded in Izmir trading house Vudmesa and David Offley.
In the first half of the XIX century. Opium is an important part of American purchases in Turkey, ranking them first in value. For example, in 1829 the total value of goods exported from the United States of Turkey, was 293,237 dollars, and opium was purchased with 92,294 dollars (30%) in 1830 out of a total export value of 417,392 dollars for the opium had 132 222 dollars (over 30%).
During this time, drugs continued to play an important role in pumping American silver from China, and the Ottoman Empire in this regard has attracted special attention of entrepreneurs of the United States. After the failure of England to protect American ships from pirates in the Mediterranean Sea Continental Congress of the United States put forward a proposal to achieve this protection by other states.
In American literature emphasizes that England — the most powerful naval power of the time, despite the fact that she could easily defeat the pirates, paid them even a kind of "tribute." The money was intended primarily to support the corsair corporations by means of which the British and entrepreneurs eager to loosen up their rivals in trade. The British government, corsairs paying "tribute" to use them to reduce trade competition from other countries.
Until we reached a lot of evidence of contemporaries of the events in the interest of England in the success of pirate operations. Lord Sheffield in published as early as 1783, "Observations of the trade in the American States," noted that both major maritime powers of Europe — England and France — on trade considerations should not contribute to the establishment of normal relations between the United States and North African states. According to Sheffield, European countries must reject what else Americans requests to provide patronage and protection of the Mediterranean Sea. This idea was developed and Lord Sheffield, during his speech in the British Parliament in 1784 he said that the European powers may not be interested in promoting trade in the United States in the Mediterranean. Moreover, these powers are interested in the fact that on American ships carried the attack.
American J. Cathcart, who was at the end of the XVIII century. captive in Algiers, then U.S. representative in several countries in North Africa, wrote that Britain and France, with its extensive trade links, are more interested in the development of piracy directed against their competitors than in the "decent retaliation."
"It is well known — also wrote the Consul General of the United States in Algeria R. O'Brien — that the powers that are in peaceful relations with the barbaric countries that do not wish to have any other country in the world has made with them, because they do not want to lose part of this profitable trade in the Mediterranean. " At the same time, among the English merchants associated with the Mediterranean trade was common proverb: "If it were not for the Algerians (meaning corsair Corporation. — N. X.), then England would have no choice no choice but to create them."
In search of the defense to trade in the Mediterranean continental U.S. Congress put forward a proposal to seek the establishment of the American seafaring patronage of France. However, this proposal was rejected by the French king, and in May 1784 the statesmen of the United States Adams, Franklin and Jefferson was asked to come to an agreement with the rulers of the North African states. In January 1787 between the United States and Morocco signed an agreement under which the Moroccan government received about 10 thousand dollars in exchange for a commitment not to interfere with American trade. Under pressure from the British authorities, acting through the British consul-general in Algiers C. Lodge, Portugal, had entered into an agreement to provide the protection to Americans in Algeria refused it. Moreover, the British emissaries pushed to direct the activities of the Algerian revolt against the Americans, and in the summer of 1785 he captured several ships of the United States. Wanting to retain the highly profitable trade in the Mediterranean, the U.S. government sent a special envoy to Algeria J. Donaldson. As a result of negotiations Donaldson was prepared and signed in September 1795 US-Algerian agreement. It provided for the payment of the annual tribute Deyu of 20 thousand dollars, and a number of other monetary contributions. In similar terms about agreements were signed with Tripoli (November 1796) and Tunisia (August 1797).
American businessmen do not want to share with the rulers of the aforementioned countries, profits from its profitable trade, what led them to these contracts, but the absence of the United States at the time the Navy deprived them of the opportunity to spend the Mediterranean desirable actions to strengthen its military, political and economic positions.
The United States began a heightened pace to prepare for an attack on the North African state. It is impossible not to recall in this connection that apt characterization of what was given by Marx aggressive action much stronger British bourgeoisie against China in the first half of the XIX century, which led the fight "for the privilege to buy cheap and sell at the most expensive markets."
The U.S. ruling circles to conduct their policies in this area under the banner of fighting piracy. Exposing the true reasons for the "police" the shares of the United States in the Mediterranean, Efimov states: "The U.S. government, in response to the industrial and commercial bourgeoisie, interested in the development of a profitable trade, and in the greatest possible displacement of England and France, with the international market, has sent a squadron and the beginning of hostilities, which lasted for several years. "
May 20, 1801, U.S. Secretary of Marine B. Stoddart ordered the so-called observation squadron (the ships, "Philadelphia", "Essex", "President" and "Enterprise") to move to the Mediterranean to put pressure on Tripoli. However, the pasha of Tripoli did not show much fear. Then the Americans took over his ship. The US-Tripoli War 1801-1805 gg. The squadron of the United States of America, to 1803 there were already seven vessels undertook the siege of the city of Tripoli, landed troops, who looted and destroyed the surrounding villages. The city has repeatedly been subjected to a fierce bombardment. It should be noted that the admiral of the fleet in Tripoli described time was a British subject Lisle.
The fight at the walls of Tripoli was delayed for several years. There was a vast concentration of naval forces of the United States: 5 frigates, one brig, 3 schooners, 1 corvette, more than 10 gunboats and barges gun.
Along with the military action of the sea Americans have taken a political diversion, seeking to ignite an internecine fight in Tripoli and to undermine from within the power of Pasha Yusuf Karamanli. Already in 1801 the American diplomatic representatives — W. Eaton in Tunisia and in Algeria J. Cathcart — developed a plan to conduct an internal coup in Tripoli and approval on the throne stooge of the United States of America. For this purpose, planned to use his brother Pasha — Hamet Karamanli, a victim earlier defeat in the struggle for power.
Plan Eaton and Cathcart was: Court squadron of Commodore Dale Hamet Karamanli will be taken to Istanbul, where he was at the request of and under pressure from the Americans to get the Sultan's firman with the approval of his "legitimate ruler of Tripoli." Meanwhile Hamet accompanied by representatives of the United States will enter into trade and political agreement with the Ottoman Empire, and the American squadron of attack from the sea support military actions initiated Hamet on land. As a result of a combined attack "usurper" will be deposed. Asserted itself as the throne of Hamet, owes so much U.S. would support U.S. interests in Tripoli.
Eaton and Cathcart plan was approved by the Minister of Marine of the United States. However, it soon became known that Hamet Karamanli accepted an offer from his brother Pasha become the ruler of the province of Derna. The idea of American diplomats threatened to break away, but under pressure from Eaton Hamet agreed to reject the proposal Pasha Yusuf and wait for further developments.
Eaton pulled into the plot of the Chief Minister of Tunisia Sapitapa, promising him 10 thousand dollars if successful coup in Tripoli. The money he expected to receive as part of the redemption of the Pasha Yusuf after his overthrow.
Presence in the Mediterranean American warships caused a revival of Commerce of the United States with the countries of the Mediterranean. Eaton reported that, despite the war, the Mediterranean Sea in the years "was covered" by the courts of American entrepreneurs.
In 1803, Eaton was authorized by President Jefferson conceived plan implementation. At the direction of the new commander of the American squadron in the Mediterranean, Commodore Barron Eaton went on board the "Argus" in Egypt, found there are found Hamet Karamanli and concluded a preliminary agreement under which Hamet pledged to reimburse the United States all of the costs associated with its claim on the throne, and create favorable conditions for the American trade. February 23, 1805 between him and Eaton, speaking on behalf of the United States, was signed by a special convention, but that Eaton was appointed Chief of Army Hamet Karamanli to march on Tripoli.
The true purpose of the expedition Eaton revealed in a letter from the Minister of Marine February 13, 1805, he wrote, if he manages to capture these provinces, the Americans will be an important source of food and receive free access to the interior of the country. He also reported that he asked the Commodore for this purpose one hundred sets of rifles with ammunition and two field guns with ammunition and ammunition, but also — if necessary — a hundred Marines to lead the coup.
Eaton and Hamet Karamanli with a detachment of U.S. Marines and recruited in Egypt, the Greeks and the Arabs (over 400) were from Egypt, across the desert and came to the turf. At the storming of the city, they were supported by fire from the sea of U.S. Navy ships "Nautilus", "Argus" and "Hornet". Turf has been invaded, but this time between the Consul General of the United States in North Africa T. Lear and Yusuf Pasha of Tripoli signed a peace treaty.
This made it unnecessary diversion of Eton. Plunging fraudulently to the U.S. Court of Marines, Greek soldiers and Hamet Karamanli and his retinue, Eaton was forced to return to the squadron.
Imposing Tripoli favorable to peaceful environment conducive to American trade, the United States sent a navy against Tunisia, whose ruler, angered by incessant intrigues of the U.S. diplomatic representative and spurred on by the English consul, offered Americans leave Tunisia. About what happened after that, calmly and clearly says we have already quoted Spiirs: "Under the muzzles of naval guns ruler of Tunisia were dictated peace terms. And it surprised the people of Europe, as has never been anything like it. Foreign trade in the nation (amerikanskoy. — N. X.) expanded as a result of the influence of established fleet. "
The ruling circles of the United States, however, were not satisfied with the achieved and sought to further strengthen its position in the Mediterranean Sea, and the ruling strata of England, interested in reducing competition in the field of trade and navigation, the Americans continued to repair all kinds of interference. Which broke out shortly Anglo-American War of 1812-1814., When the British naval supremacy partly blocked the path of the courts of the United States to European shores, was a period of some reduction of American commerce in the Mediterranean.
This war, in American bourgeois historiography is not quite right referred to as "second war of independence the United States," as one of the reasons was the desire of American capitalists and the ruling circles to strengthen its maritime industry and trade.
The struggle has not brought a decisive victory either of the other side. However, the fact that the Americans were able to some extent to withstand far more developed and economically robust UK, further contributed to a significant intensification of the activities of the United States in the Mediterranean basin.
Shortly after the war of 1812-1814. the U.S. government in May 1815 sent from New York to the Mediterranean squadron of 10 ships under the command of Commodore S. Decatur. This was followed by a Boston primary squadron of eight ships under the command of William Bainbridge, who led the entire expedition.
Acting methods do not differ from pirate, Decatur raised on their ships the English flag. However, this maneuver failed: Americans have been identified. Due to its military superiority, they still captured and sunk several Algerian ships, taken indiscriminately bombing of undefended towns, trying to terrorize the population and the rulers of the Arab states. American actions particularly enhanced since joining the squadron Bainbridge Decatur when the Mediterranean was huge at that time, the American fleet of 18 warships, "menacing appearance is — written Alden and Earl — had a favorable impact on U.S. interests abroad."
In June 1815 Algeria was imposed bonded contract under which the United States granted the rights of "most favored nation". His signing angered influential feudal circles Algeria, and before the ratification of the treaty action Algerian Omar asked the representative of the United States W. Sheylera issue a formal "certificate" certifying that he "had to accept this agreement under the muzzles of American guns." Sheyler granted the request, and in December 1816 Omar approved the agreement.
Following the strengthening of the position of the United States in Algeria have been made "visits" of the American fleet at Tunis and Tripoli, who have had to pay under the threat of war to the United States the major contributory amount.
After carrying out the terrorist campaign the U.S. ruling circles have decided to keep a special Mediterranean squadron. Her trial is usually wintered at Port Mahon in Menorca (Balearic Islands) and carried regular patrols, contributing to the strengthening of American influence on the shores of the Mediterranean and "symbolizing the power of the United States is constantly undulating waters of the sea."
By the beginning of the 20s of the XIX century. American policy in the Mediterranean was also activated in the area of the east coast — in Greece. This was due to a complication of the situation in the Ottoman Empire in connection with the development of the liberation movement of the Greek people.
In 1948, in New York, a book of American Professor D. Robinson called "America in Greece. The traditional policy ", which is a kind of publication. Basically it contains materials concerning the liberation struggle of the Greek people against the Turkish yoke of feudal lords in the years 1821-1823. The compiler of this anthology has led a number of documents that showed sympathy for the various circles of the United States (especially the masses) that struggle and at the end of the publication printed speech of President Truman, sets out the famous "Truman Doctrine" in relation to Greece and Turkey.
Thus D. Robinson would seem to emphasize the "tradition" of American policy in Greece. The comparison is, however, acquired the ironic sense. As is known, the main result of the "aid" received by Greece as a result of the "Truman Doctrine" was the strengthening of the U.S. imperialism in this country. As for the assistance of the United: States of the fighters for independence in 1821-1823 gg., Then, even if we judge by the documents contained in the book D. Robinson, the United States, reflecting the views of influential industry trade layers and be guided by their selfish interests, refused to of real assistance to the Greek Revolution. The position taken by them in this matter is well covered in a short article by American author E. Earle "Early American policy towards the national minorities of the Ottoman Empire," published in 1927 and based mainly on the materials of the Congress of the United States.
E. Earle stressed that the United States in the period were interested in the development and strengthening of trade and missionary relations with the countries of the Mediterranean basin, the Turkish port of Smyrna became an important reference point to "expand U.S. trade with the Middle East," being the main export port of Turkish opium in China. He further noted that "stay on the Mediterranean American merchant ships made it necessary to strengthen these waters Marine squadron of the United States' command which" led at that time delicate negotiations "with the sultan.
All these circumstances have determined the position of the United States against the Greek Revolution. U.S. government admits sometimes demagogic arguments about "the struggle for democratic rights," etc., does not respond to the many calls for the support of the Greek revolutionary patriots. Only in August 1823 the ruling circles of the United States began to discuss the issue of recognition of the Greek republic, and then Secretary of State John Quincy Adams responded negatively to the representative of the Greek revolutionary government of Andreas Luriotisa to recognize the independence of Greece. Congress rejected the proposal of Senator Webster even sending in this country U.S. "observer".
"It became clear that the volume of U.S. trade with Smyrna and the cost of American property in this city are not such as to allow Congress to ignore them without good reason, — said Earle. — Thomas Perkins, the most prominent American trader, who had affairs with Smyrna, refused to participate in the Boston Committee for the Liberation of the Greeks, fearing, perhaps, a serious compromise of its interests in Turkey. "
The representative of the United States in Smyrna pointed out that Americans have in this port to different asset value of more than $ 200 thousand, and this fact will certainly limit any sort was the desire on their part to help the Greek patriots. In addition, the value of U.S. trade through Smyrna in 1820-1822 gg. reached $ 2.3 million, while in 1823 it increased by 1.2 million. U.S., indicating a significant increase in the volume of trade. "No member of Congress … was not located easily ignore these interests," — reported Earle.
Senator Webster proposed resolution on sending an agent to Greece for the observations was found "malorazumnoy and not pursuing a useful purpose." John Quincy Adams even accused of the most active supporters of helping the Greeks Kalhuna, Gallatin and Clay in an effort to make political capital out of popular slogans.
Only at the end of 1825 the U.S. government changed some position in this matter, guided by the very fact of what Adams chided his opponents — the desire to make political capital. In September 1825 W. Samervill was sent an observer to Greece with special instruction in what does not interfere with a rather difficult assignment to explain the reasons for the Greek patriots neutrality of the United States. Samervill died in France in January 1826, and before reaching Greece. Successor of it has not been assigned. This limited the entire interest of the U.S. ruling circles of the revolutionary struggle of the Greek people.
In the end, Earl has done quite correctly concluded: "When the Russian crossed the Prut River in May 1828, the freedom of modern Greeks was provided." This was another 75 years before he wrote Karl Marx, who pointed out that "the outcome of the fighting during the uprising of the Greeks" decided "Dibich, which came at the head of the Russian army through the Balkans to the valley of Maritsa" and that "nine-tenths of the population of European Turkey will be seen in Russia their only support, their liberator, their Messiah. "
Thus, the ruling circles of the United States actually refused any assistance from the Greek patriots, and the most important reason was the reluctance to endanger the profits earned by the influential strata of American businesses from trade ties with the Middle East, primarily from the resale of the Turkish opium into China.
Khalfin Naftula Aaronovitch
From the book Home of American expansion in the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean in 1958
See also: applied worldwide strategy of total destruction and terror, the U.S. military has honed on its own population