Rüstem Pasha, 1873–1883
After consolidation of the new regime in France, however, its diplomats reappeared on the stage to make their influence felt, at a time when the Ottoman government had its hands full with a series of internal and external problems. During these troubled times, Rüstem Pasha was the governor of Mount Lebanon. He was a capable official and an experienced diplomat who had served as the Ottoman ambassador to Florence and St. Petersburg.[26] When he was proposed as a successor to Franko, who died in 1873, the French ambassador to Istanbul considered blocking his appointment in view of Rüstem's reluctance to accommodate French interests in his previous posts. But, unable to propose a better alternative, the French ultimately consented to Rüstem's appointment. Nevertheless, they saw to the organization of Francophile demonstrations in Mount Lebanon soon after Rüstem's arrival, to impress upon him the extent of French influence among the Maronites and demonstrate that a smooth administration of the affairs of the Mountain necessitated catering to French and Maronite interests.[27]
Rüstem ignored the demonstrations. From the beginning, he based his administration on his outspoken belief that the best interests of the people of Mount Lebanon lay in their willingness to work together in peace toward a prosperous life under the auspices of their legitimate sovereign, the sultan, and in accordance with the Règlement that the sultan had agreed to bestow upon them out of his deep concern for their well-being. In line with this outlook, Rüstem made a point of establishing cordial but equidistant and formal relations with all major groups and institutions wielding influence in the Mountain, including the Maronite Church and the French Consulate.[28] At first this helped to foster the institutionalization and respectability of the local government,[29] but the blow inflicted on Ottoman prestige by the central government's inability to cope with the internal and external problems which mushroomed in the mid-1870s put Rüstem in a difficult position.
Among those internal problems were natural disasters that destroyed much of the agricultural crops in Anatolia in 1872–74. Government efforts to relieve the consequent famine by grain purchases at enforced prices in the Balkan provinces aggravated the tension already prevailing there. Peasant unrest fed by increasingly popular nationalistic sentiments
led to all-out rebellions against Ottoman rule. Paralyzed by successive coups d'état, the government in Istanbul lost control of events. Meanwhile, the Ottoman Treasury was crushed under the burden of interest and the sinking fund payments on the huge debt incurred in previous years. Havoc erupted among European creditors, just as the Russian threats to interfere in defense of Orthodox subjects of the Ottoman Empire intensified.
Foreign ministers of major European powers met in Istanbul to discuss the internal and external problems of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman government found the resolutions of the conference too humiliating to be acceptable, but the 1877 Russo-Ottoman War that followed brought even farther-reaching consequences. Possible dismemberment of the Empire became a common topic in diplomatic circles. This was avoided partly due to disagreements among the major European powers and partly because of the bitterly realistic policy followed by the Ottoman government under the relatively stable leadership of the new sultan, Abdulhamid II (1876–1909), and a group of conservative pashas who made common cause with him to end the confusion prevailing at the helm of government. In the Berlin Treaty of 1878 and a series of related agreements, the Ottomans surrendered large tracts of territory to other states. They also agreed to pay an enormous sum as war indemnity to Russia and to put a significant portion of government revenue under the administration of an international agency specially formed to service payment of the Ottoman public debt.[30]
These developments had serious repercussions in Mount Lebanon. Alarmed by the intensification of religious sentiments among the Muslim population in urban centers, as the Istanbul conference failed to produce acceptable solutions and war with Russia became imminent, some Christians living in the vicinity rushed to take refuge in Mount Lebanon. According to the Porte, the Russian and French consulates and the expansionist elements in Mount Lebanon instigated the panic. The Porte ordered Rüstem Pasha and his colleague in Damascus to approach the issue in a conciliatory way, taking all measures necessary to reassure the panic-stricken Christians.[31] Acting in close cooperation, the two pashas managed to calm the Christians. No sooner had this problem been contained than friction and sporadic clashes erupted between the Druze and the Maronite people in the Mountain itself. Rüstem promptly called in the regular troops from Damascus and deployed them in the centers of tension. Simultaneously, he did everything he could to reconcile the conflicting parties. A major crisis was prevented, and the grand vizier conveyed to Rüstem the sultan's personal praises, adding:
His Imperial Majesty the Sultan wishes you to continue the precautions taken, pay utmost attention to preventing the occurrence of events or situations which may serve as a pretext for [foreign] intervention at these critical times, and continue to foster the motives and means necessary for elimination of the traces of hostility from the minds of the people, for the sake of the complete restoration of peace and order in Mount Lebanon.[32]
Rüstem Pasha managed to keep Mount Lebanon reasonably quiet through the Russo-Ottoman War, but he could not avoid a growing rift in his relations first with the Maronite Church and then with the French Consulate in Beirut. When defeat in the war cast the future of the Ottoman State in doubt, Butrus Bustani, the Maronite bishop of Dair al-Qamar, considered the time opportune to settle scores with the governor, whose secularist administrative policy he evidently disliked. With the help of his colleague in Beirut, Bishop Yusuf Dibs, he launched a campaign based on accusations of misconduct against Rüstem. Rüstem responded by removing Bishop Bustani to Jerusalem in June 1878, on the grounds that his activities were endangering sectarian harmony in Shuf, the most sensitive mixed district in the Mountain. At this stage, both the French chargé d'affaires and the British consul in Beirut sided with the governor, not only to defend him against undeserved accusations but also because they agreed with him on the disruptive nature of Bishop Bustani's activities. The French ambassador to Istanbul thought likewise.[33]
In Paris, however, different considerations prevailed. Although France was guaranteed a free hand in Tunisia in compensation for the Russian, British, and Austro-Hungarian gains in the Berlin Treaty, the Quai d'Orsay was growing increasingly suspicious of the possibility of being outmaneuvered by the British in Syria and Egypt, in case the further dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire became inevitable. Bent on being ready for all possible situations, the French government decided that it could not afford to alienate the Maronite Church, the surest client of France in the area. This decision marked a shift in French priorities from a commitment to the Règlement as a means toward a viable administration in Mount Lebanon to a commitment to work in close cooperation with the Maronite Church in defense of French interests. John Spagnolo, who discusses this shift of emphasis in French policy on the basis of French documents, shows that from about 1879 onward French diplomats in the area became increasingly uncooperative in their relations with Rüstem Pasha. This was manifest in even the most obvious cases of administrative expediency, such as resolution of the mutasarrifiyya 's budgetary problems.[34]
The British occupation of Egypt in July 1882 clearly intensified the Quai d'Orsay's anxiety about strengthening its position and connections in Mount Lebanon. The French diplomats in the area and in Istanbul were instructed to block Rüstem's reappointment six months before the termination of his tenure in April 1883 and to work toward his replacement by someone amenable to French interests.[35] Simultaneously, a flurry of petitions complaining about Rüstem's policies began to pour into the Porte as well as the embassies of the major powers in Istanbul from various parts of Mount Lebanon. The Porte asked the governor of Damascus, Ahmed Hamdi Pasha, a former grand vizier renowned for his probity, to inquire into the complaints aired in the petitions.
Ahmed Hamdi Pasha defended Rüstem in two consecutive reports. First, he discussed the petitions in detail.[36] Rüstem was accused of deviation from the guidelines set in the Règlement on the judicial system, for levying extraordinary duties, arbitrary dismissal of judges and other officials, and interference in the judicial process. According to Ahmed Hamdi's inquiries and observations, the first two accusations were outlandish. Alterations in the judicial system were aimed at improving its efficiency and were inspired by the recent reorganization of Ottoman courts after the French model. Extraordinary duties had been collected to build bridges and roads for the exclusive benefit of the Lebanese.[37] Hamdi Pasha admitted that there were instances when Rüstem had interfered with the process of justice or dismissed officials, but these situations invariably involved judges and officials who had abused their authority in defense of obvious criminals, because of sectarian sympathies.[38] Complaints from petitioners from Shuf, however, about the tolerance shown by Rüstem to their district-governor Mustafa Arslan's vindictive acts against his opponents were not baseless. All in all, Hamdi Pasha held, the petitions reflected not the general opinion of the people of the Mountain, but the determination of a militant and predominantly Maronite minority to prevent Rüstem's reappointment as governor. The Maronite clergy had spearheaded the movement, and a group of people who aspired to governmental positions under a new governor helped the clergy collect, and sometimes forge, signatures for the petitions. But the go-ahead for the campaign had come from the French consul, Patrimonio.
In his second report, Hamdi discussed the motives behind the French move:
The French view the uninterrupted intensification of their influence in Mount Lebanon as a crucial investment toward acquiring the whole of Syria as a cardinal principle of their policy in the region. The fulfillment of this [objective] depends upon the intensification of
the power and influence of the Maronite clergy, who nourish desires for independence and feel strongly attached to the French. But Rüstem Pasha, driven by his determination to guard the rights of the Sublime Sultanate and taking advantage of the eclipse of the prestige of France in the wake of its defeat by Germany, made an effort to bring the bishops' interference in government affairs to an end. His policy undermined the Church's interests and influence and thus touched the very essence of French policy. His elimination and replacement by someone amenable to the French became extremely important for the successful pursuit of their policy.[39]
According to Hamdi Pasha, this alliance between the Maronite Church and the French Consulate was the real source of the complaints against Rüstem. Otherwise, Rüstem's efforts to improve the conditions necessary for a peaceful, stable, and just order in Mount Lebanon, and his achievements in this regard, were widely acknowledged and appreciated by its inhabitants. Moreover, he was an ardent defender of Ottoman rights and interests, distinctly more so than his predecessors. Hamdi realized that although Rüstem was the ideal governor for Mount Lebanon, the determined opposition of France would preclude his reappointment. The French were looking for pretexts to become directly involved in the administration of Mount Lebanon as a prelude to the realization of their ambitions concerning Syria. In order to thwart their plans, it was essential that the Porte manage to appoint in Rüstem's place a governor who was experienced in diplomatic relations, capable of handling the affairs of the Mountain prudently, and not the least bit sympathetic toward French designs.
Rüstem Pasha himself argued that hostility to France was far from being a guiding principle of his policy in Mount Lebanon, but as an official of the Ottoman State he could not possible tolerate the French-backed efforts of the Maronite clergy to keep the rest of the Mountain's population under their oppressive sway.[40] Abdulhamid II wanted to keep Rüstem in his position. When this proved impossible, he vetoed a number of candidates until the Foreign Ministry was finally able to come up with one acceptable to the European powers as well as the sultan. This candidate was Vasa Efendi, counselor of the governor of Edirne. He was made a pasha and in 1883 appointed Mount Lebanon's new governor for a term of ten years.[41]