Egypt's example
"Writers who have published works on Algeria have given only a vague idea of the extent of the vast continent of which it forms a part. Before the invasion, Europeans did not even know the coastal part of the Regency of Algiers, limited in the west by Oujda and in the south-east by Ghadames, which is connected to the province of Tripoli.
Some illustrious [French] generals have not hesitated to propose the extermination of an entire nation, basing this thought on the small number of inhabitants in the country. But, even if we admit that this small number is not more than two million, as some writers have claimed, would it not be a crime in the eyes of the civilised world, and in those of the world as a whole, to exterminate two million people?
I do not think that differences in religion should be used as a reason for denying other people their rights.
The fertility of Algeria is unarguable, the country's proximity to France is obvious and the submissive attitude of the population of the city of Algiers is well-known, but the hostile attitude of the rest of the Regency towards the French has been provoked either by fanaticism when mosques, the tombs of marabouts or even cemeteries have been profaned, or by the poor governance of the French administration in Algiers.
The French government will not be able to benefit from the Regency without emptying its treasury and exposing itself to criticism by waging war on a people opposed to its policies. It is certainly not through me, or through the thousand other pacifically inclined men who bend themselves to circumstances, that it will be able to get benefits from the Regency. I, therefore, can neither mislead my readers, nor flatter the great French nation, by telling them that France will be able to get the benefits that it supposes it can from the Regency of Algiers. Any man who flatters the French government, pretending to show it the way to overcome so many obstacles, is an intriguer seeking to enrich himself at the expense of the natives and of France itself. On the contrary, any impartial man, having followed my mathematically worked out arguments, will be able to see that Algeria will be a burden for France, when compared to the heavy weight of the occupation, and this contradicts the principles of the government, which preaches lightening the sufferings of the people and their emancipation. The government itself cannot deny this reality.
Moreover, this same government will see itself forced to surrender the administration of Algiers to a small number of men and to turn to arbitrary methods, something diametrically opposed to its liberal institutions. The experience of three years of occupation has been enough to remove any doubt about this. France will not get anything from Algiers, and it will only be able to introduce civilisation there if it carries out one or other of two policies: either to exterminate the population, or to invite all the inhabitants of the Regency... to sell their possessions and leave the Regency of Algiers. Failing this, it will have to ask them for a guarantee that they will submit without the shedding of any blood.
The newspaper Le Courrier français for 6 September [1833] said on this subject: "What is it trying to do? (speaking of the government) Create a colony or an extermination camp? (speaking of Algiers) The actions of the governors of Algiers have made things incurable, but both of these possibilities are unconstitutional."
I, who see things truthfully, am unable to stop myself from expressing my way of thinking frankly: perhaps there are those who will be offended by this, and who will accuse me of having a personal interest, or of bearing a grudge against European institutions. However, I defy anyone to be able to remedy the situation in Algeria without either employing one or other of the two means outlined above, or by evacuating the country and establishing an independent indigenous government, as was done in Egypt. This government would be one that follows the same religion and has the same customs as the population and that is set up by treaties favourable to the two peoples. France in this way would undoubtedly do better than if Algeria remained a French colony, and this act of generosity would be applauded by the whole world. [...]
This is my opinion, at least if France, as I presume to be the case, is only seeking to introduce civilisation to Algeria, to abolish despotism and to put all feelings of vengeance and hatred to one side.
The French government could follow the system that has already been tried out in Egypt. Its progress has been obvious, and its success cannot be doubted. It has not been through a French administration nor through violence that reform of Egypt has come about and French influence established there. Rather, it has been through the presence of a viceroy, in this way managing to civilise, to introduce the arts and to increase the resources of this country that under the Mamelukes was vacant or paralysed. The indissoluble link that now exists between the French and the Egyptians was established through the presence of this viceroy."
(Translated from Hamdan Khodja, Le Miroir, aperçu historique et statistique sur la régence d'Alger [1833], Paris: Actes sud, 2003, pp260 -- 263)
