ABSTRACT
Throughout his lengthy reign, Sultan Abdülhamid was preoccupied by his Empire’s vulnerability to the European Great Powers. It was not simply that Abdülhamid feared military attack, and knew that his chances of resisting it were slim; he also feared that the Powers might undermine his Empire’s independence and integrity from within, through techniques of “peaceful penetration.” The latter fear was grounded in historical experience. Since the 1830s, in fact, European Powers had succeeded in penetrating the Ottoman Empire to a considerable degree, interfering in its internal affairs, and recruiting networks of clients among the Sultan’s own subjects. A number of factors had facilitated this penetration. The Powers had acquired certain legal rights of interference in Ottoman internal affairs, through the reform provisions of the treaties of Paris (1856) and Berlin (1878), through the capitulations, which gave their subjects legal and fiscal privileges within the Ottoman Empire, and through the religious protectorates which particular Powers asserted over particular groups of Ottoman Christians.1 In addition, the considerable expansion of the Ottoman Empire’s trade with the European Powers, and the various economic concessions, including ports, railways, mines, and river navigation, which had been awarded by the Ottoman government to European enterprises, had enabled the Powers to build up local commercial clienteles, particularly in the major ports and trading centers.2 This commercial influence was accompanied by cultural influence, promoted by missionaries and educational institutions. Finally, the omnipresence of European political influence was assured through chains of consuls, established in almost every important provincial center throughout the Empire. To Abdülhamid and his advisers, the danger seemed obvious: if left to penetrate unchecked, European influence would eventually undermine the political authority of the Ottoman government, leading to the establishment of “zones of influence” and to ultimate partition. The examples of Egypt and India were not encouraging.
