Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T08:18:27.274Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bū Himāra's European connexion: the commercial relations of a Moroccan warlord

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2009

Ross E. Dunn
Ross E. Dunn
Affiliation:
San Diego State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The rural rebellion and dissidence of Jilālī ibn Idrīs al-Zarhūnā al-Yūsufī, alias Bū Ḥimāra, was among the most debilitating of the crises to afflict the Moroccan central government (makhzan) during its final decade of freedom from formal French control. Bū Ḥimāra, falsely declaring himself to be Mawlay MuḤammad, older brother of the reigning sultan, and thereby rightful claimant to the Sharifian throne, held sway over much of the northeastern part of the country between 1903 and 1909. Though the rebellion never extended beyond this region, the makhzan's protracted attempts to stamp it out contributed significantly to Morocco's political instability and fiscal collapse. The movement, under Bū Ḥimāra's leadership, may be divided into two major phases: the first, lasting about six months, when the revolt had the character of a mass popular protest against the makhzan; the second, from late 1903 to 1909, when Bū Ḥimāra, with a reduced and fluid band of partisans, settled into the role of regional warlord, ruling over a petty state apparatus in the mountainous Northeast. During the longer second phase, his paramountcy was similar in form and objective to that of other regional strong men who carved out principalities in peripheral areas of the country, building their power on access to modern firearms in defiance of the makhzan. This paper argues that the success and tenacity of Bū Ḥimāra's dissidence was dependent on his ability to develop connexions with the wider world of European commerce: merchandise and commodities trade yielding customs revenue, importation of firearms, relations with Algerian businessmen, and mining concessions. These forms of external support are examined and evaluated, leading to the conclusion that Bū Ḥimāra's principal objective from late 1903 onward was not active rebellion but rather an effort to maintain his political and military captaincy over the Northeast, drawing on whatever external resources were available. Though he successfuly defied the government for several years, his increasing association with European commercial and mining interests undermined his popular support and ultimately led to his downfall.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of African History , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , April 1980 , pp. 235 - 253
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 FO 174/270, Macleod, to Gray, , 5 Aug. 1909Google Scholar, no. 28.

2 This paper is based largely on research in four principal archival collections: Archives du Ministère de la Guerre, Section d'Afrique et d'Outre-Mer, Vincennes (hereafter AMG); Archives du Ministère des Affaires Etrangères, Maroc Nouvelle Série, Paris (hereafter AMAE, n.s.); Archives Nationales, Section Outre-Mer, Gouvernement Général de l'Algérie, Aix-en-Provence (hereafter AGGA); Public Record Office, Foreign Office Political Correspondence, London (hereafter FO). This research was supported by grants from the Social Science Research Council in 1971–2 and from San Diego State University Foundation in 1974–1975Google Scholar. All translations from French are mine unless otherwise noted.

3 The principal narrative accounts of Bū Himūra's career are: Maldonado, Edouardo, El Rogui (Tetouan, 1952Google Scholar); Maitrot de la Motte-Capron, A., ‘Le Roghi’, Bulletin de la Société de Géographie d' Alger (1929), 514–76Google Scholar; Benhamu, Luis Jiminez, ‘Bu-Hamara’, Conferencias Desarrolladas en la Academí de Interventores durante el Curso de 1948 (Tetouan, 1949), 157–215Google Scholar. Also see Arnaud, Louis, Au Temps des Mehallas ou le Maroc de 1860 à 1912 (Casablanca, 1952)Google Scholar; Aubin, Eugène, Le Maroc d'aujourd’hui, 8th ed. (Paris, 1912)Google Scholar; ‘Abd al-Rahmān ibn Zaydān, , Ithā l;f a'lām al-nās bījamāl akhbār hāirat miknās (Rabat, 1930).Google Scholar

4 The general significance of the revolt in Morocco's political history is discussed in Edmund Burke III, Prelude to Protectorate in Morocco: Precolonial Protest and Resistance, 1860–1912 (Chicago, 1976), 62–5;Google ScholarGuillen, Pierre, L'Allemagne et le Maroc de 1870 à 1905 (Paris, 1967), 619–21;Google Scholar and Laroui, Abdallah, Les Origines sociales et culturelles du nationalisme marocain (Paris, 1977), 354–67.Google Scholar

5 I have discussed the causes of the revolt and the significance of its early phase in another article, ‘The Bu Himara Rebellion in Northeast Morocco: Phase I ’, forthcoming in Middle Eastern Studies.

6 ‘Abd al-‘Azīz had the real Mawlay Muhammad under detention in Meknes, a fact well known to most Moroccans.

7 de la Motte-Capron, Maitrot (‘Le Roghi’, 560, 567)Google Scholar supports this point.

8 See Montagne, Robert, Les Berbères et le Makhzen dans le sud du Maroc (Paris, 1930), 341–347.Google Scholar

9 Two 1904 reports from European observers suggest that at that time Bū Himāra did not levy taxes at all but was dependent on fines, ransoms, gifts, booty, and customs duties. FO 174/265, Macleod, James (British Consul at Fez) to White, , 17 July 1904, no. 32Google Scholar; and AMG, C16, Rapports du Commandant Labry, 18 Feb. 1904Google Scholar (This is a report second hand from Dr Gieurre, a French Algerian physician who went to the Rūgī’s camp to tend a shoulder wound he had received in a skirmish.) In 1906 Macleod reported that Bū Himāra was attempting for the first time to raise large sums of money by taxing the tribes under his sway. FO 174/267, Macleod to Lowther, , 30 April 1906, no. 12Google Scholar; and 10 May 1906, no. 17. A French report the same year noted that numerous people were taking ship at Melilla for Algeria to escape the Rūgī‘s tax exactions. AMG, C16, Fariau (French military mission in Morocco) to Min. of War, 10 Feb. 1906, no. 144.Google Scholar

10 This battle is recounted in detail from the Aith Waryaghar point of view in Hart, David Montgomery, The Aith Waryaghar of the Moroccan Rif (Tucson, Arizona, 1976), 361–8.Google Scholar

11 The history of Bū Himāra's political contacts with the governments of France and Spain are the subject of a separate article.

12 AMAE, n.s. 168, Prefect of Oran to Gov. Gen., 12 Dec. 1905. FO 174/267, Macleod to White, , 31 Oct. 1906, no. 53.Google Scholar

13 Fidel, Camille, ‘Notes sur l'influence espagnole au Maroc’, Renseignements Coloniaux (hereafter Ren. Col.), no. 11, 1904, p. 297Google Scholar. Bernard, Augustin, Les Confins algéro-marocains (Paris, 1911), 321.Google Scholar

14 Clensault, R. [Reginald Kahn], ‘L'Armée du Prétendant marocain’, Le Figaro, 2 Oct. 1903.Google Scholar

15 de la Motte-Capron, Maitrot, ‘Le Roghi’, 522, 566.Google Scholar

16 AMG, C16, Rapports du Com. de Labry, 18 Feb. 1904Google Scholar. FO 174/267, Macleod, to White, , 31 Oct. 1906Google Scholar, no. 53. Clensault, ‘L'Armée du Prétendant’. Also Maldonado, , El Rogui, 163.Google Scholar

17 Miège, Jean-Louis, Le Maroc et l'Europe, 4 vols. (Paris, 1961–1963), III, 69–73Google Scholar, IV, 222, 223. Déchaud, Edouard, Le Commerce algéro-marocain (Algiers, 1906), 14–26Google Scholar. Bernard, , Confins, 278–282Google Scholar, 316–326.

18 Bernard, , Confins, 318.Google Scholar

19 AGGA, , 30H. 58Google Scholar, Consul, French at Malaga to Min. of For. Af., April 1909Google Scholar, no. 45. The Consul also noted that some of Melilla's trade was being diverted to the smaller Spanish enclaves on the Rifian coast (Alhucemas, Peñon de la Gomera, and the Zaffarine Islands) where Moroccan buyers could avoid all fees and duties, Spanish or Moroccan. Also Bernard, , Confins, 318.Google Scholar

20 AMG, D5, Min. of For. Aff. to Min. of War, 7 Sept. 1909Google Scholar, no. 928. Charles-René Leclerc, , ‘Le commerce et l'industrie à Fes’, Ren. Col., no. 7, 07 1905 p. 231Google Scholar. Commercial activity between Fez and the Algerian frontier remained largely blocked until the French occupied Taza in 1915.

21 FO 174/264, Macleod, to Nicolson, , 13 Mar. 1903Google Scholar, no. 34; 12 April 1903, no. 42; 15 Aug. 1903; 174/267, Macleod, to White, , 20 Sept. 1906Google Scholar, no. 45. AMG, C16, Rapports du Com. de Labry, 18 Feb. 1904.Google Scholar

22 Mougin, Lt., ‘La crise commerciale des marchés franco-marocains’, Ren. Col., no. 9, 1908, p. 190Google Scholar. Bernard, , Confins, 284, 291–7.Google Scholar

23 Even on the frontier livestock trade declined considerably during the rebellion, picking up again only in 1908. Fidel, Camille, ‘Le Commerce du Maroc oriental’, Ren. Col., no. 7, 1904, 178, 179Google Scholar. Fidel, , ‘Notes sur l'influence espagnol’, 297Google Scholar. Dechaud, , Le Commerce algéro-marocain, 30Google Scholar, 90, 91. Bernard, , Confins, 288Google Scholar, 289, 319. It should be noted that the dominance of Melilla over Algeria was not synonymous with the dominance of Spanish trade over French. Goods of French origin, notably sugar and flour, accounted for the highest percentage of total trade through Melilla during the Bū; Himāra period, with British products coming in second over Spain. This situation reflected the overall decline of Spanish trade into Morocco relative to the other major European countries during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. See Fidel, ‘Notes sur l'influence espagnole’, 293–301; Bernard, , Confins, 318–320Google Scholar; and Miège, , Le Maroc et l'Europe, iv, 224–227.Google Scholar

24 See White, Gavin, ‘Firearms in Africa: An introduction’, J. Afr. Hist., 12 (1971), 173–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25 Quoted in Brown, Kenneth L., People of Salé: Tradition and Change in a Moroccan City, 1830–1930 (Manchester, 1976), 183Google Scholar. Brown's translation.

26 Miège, , Le Maroc et l'Europe, iv, 106, 222.Google Scholar

27 On the firearms trade in southeastern Morocco during this period see Dunn, Ross E., Resistance in the Desert: Moroccan Responses to French Imperialism, 1881–1912 (London and Madison, Wisconsin, 1977), 125–9Google Scholar. Also see Ayache, Germain, ‘Société rifaine et pouvoir central marocain (1850–1920)’, Revue Historique (1975), 345–370.Google Scholar

28 White, , ‘Firearms in Africa’, 182.Google Scholar

29 FO 174/277, British Envoy at Gibraltar, to Nicolson, , Feb. 22, 1903Google Scholar. AMG, C16, Min. of France at Lisbon to Delcassé, Jan. 26, 1905Google Scholar; C18, Prefect of Oran to Gov. Gen., 19 Dec. 1905Google Scholar, no. 11416.

30 AMAE, n.s. 168, Prefect of Oran to Gov. Gen., 12 Dec. 1905Google Scholar. The numerous documents in the French foreign affairs and military archives which attest to Spanish complicity in the arms trade must be treated cautiously, owing, if nothing else, to their strong negative tone concerning Spanish influence in northeasten Morocco. Spanish involvement in contraband, however, had been reported by European observers over a period of many years prior to Bū Himāra's appearance. The abundance of modern rifles among the Rūgīa's partisans, including in later years large numbers of 1888 model Spanish Mausers, is perhaps the best evidence of Spanish complicity.

31 AMG, C18, Gov. Gen. to Min. of War, 11 April 1905Google Scholar, no. 462.

32 FO 174/263, Statement of Mohammed ben Abbas al-Rahmoui al-Burnusi to Macleod, Vice-Consul, 18 July 1903Google Scholar. Clensault, ‘L'Armée du Prétendant’. The French army at Oujda reported in 1908 that Bū Himāra had a ‘personal reserve’ of 350 Lee-Metfords, 250 Mausers, and a few Gras, Remingtons, and Martinis. AMG, D4, Gen. Lyautey, to Gov. Gen., 17 Nov. 1908Google Scholar, no. 1110.

33 FO 99/396, Maclean, Harry to Nicolson, , 25 Dec. 1902Google Scholar. AMG, C18, Gov. Gen. to Min. of War, 23 Jan. 1906Google Scholar, no. 185 (report on a visit to Selwan by Ben Aouda ben Daoud, a Muslim from Oran). de Taillis, Jean, Le Maroc pittoresque (Paris, 1905), 70Google Scholar. Clensault, , ‘L'Armée du Prétendant’.Google Scholar

34 AMAE, n.s. 168Google Scholar, Min. of For. Aff. to Chargé d'Affairs, Tanger, , 31 Jan. 1906Google Scholar, no. 25; n.s. 169, Gov. Gen. to Min. of For. Aff., 11 Feb., no. 372; AMG, Rapport du Capt. Ben Khouty, 14 Feb. 1908Google Scholar. Rodes, Jean, ‘Le Prétendant Moulay Mohamed’, L'Eclair, 25 Feb. 1906.Google Scholar

35 On the importance of firearms in the rise of Madanī al-Glawī, see Montagne, Les Berbères et le Makhzen, 332Google Scholar, 335, 336.

36 The rickety state of the Moroccan army in the field during this period is well known. A member of the French military mission remarked in 1905 that the makhzan could have captured Bū Himāra a number of times but that ‘the Moroccan commanders have too great an interest in prolonging a situation which brings them large profits through their exactions on the expenditures for maintaining the numerous soldiers sent from the interior. Moreover, there exists a great rivalry among them which favours the absence of a commander-in-chief.’ AMG, C15, Fariau to Min. of War, 1 Aug. 1905Google Scholar, no. 117.

37 FO 174/268, Macleod, to Lowther, , 5 Sept. 1907Google Scholar, no. 88. AGGA, 30H. 54Google Scholar, Reibell, to Commander Division of Oran, 1 Oct. 1907Google Scholar. AMAE, n.s. 239Google Scholar, Aulaire, Saint to Min. of For. Aff., 12 Jan. 1908Google Scholar, no. 18.

38 This was the case in a fight near the walls of Oujda in April 1905. AMG, C15, Fariau to Min. of War, 1 Mar. 1905Google Scholar, no. 86. The military mission also directed artillery in the final battles with the Rūgī in 1909. AMG, C22, Mangin to Min. of War, 23 Aug. 1909Google Scholar, no. 79. FO 174/270, Macleod, to Gray, , 16 Aug. 1909Google Scholar, no. 29.

39 See Déchaud, Le-Commerce algét-marocain. Déchaud was Secretary of the Oran Chamber of Commerce, and his book was published by the Comité Oranais du Maroc.

40 See Llabador, Francis, Port-Say et son fondateur (Oran, 1955)Google Scholar. Also Taillis, , Le Maroc pittoresque, 39–44Google Scholar. Bernard, , Confins, 267, 268.Google Scholar

41 For example, in May 1903, Bū Himāra addressed a letter to the European ministers at Tangier in which he professed a special interest in having good relations with France. AMAE, n.s. 184, Mohammed ben El Hasan [Bū Himāra] to ‘Tous les intelligents Ministres de Chrétiens en résidence à Tanger’, May 1903 (French trans, only).

42 AGGA, 30H. 49, Gen. O'Connor to Com. 19th Corps, 2 July 1903Google Scholar, no. 569. Col. Voinot, L., ‘ Les conséquences de la lutte du Makhzen et du Rogui à proximité de la frontiére algérienne (1903–1905)’Google Scholar, Bulletin de la Société de Géographie et de l'Archéologie d'Oran, LV (June 1934), 171.Google Scholar

43 AMG, C18, Rapports du Com. de Labry, 18 Feb. 1904.Google Scholar

44 The most well-known European in Bū Himāra's entourage was the French adventurer Gabriel Delbrel, who styled himself the Rūgī's chef d'Etat-Major. The literature on Bū Himāra has grossly exaggerated the importance of Delbrel as a political and military adviser. The explanation lies in the fact that Delbrel himself was an irrepressible self-publicist. He wrote several articles on Bū Himāra for the French and Algerian press, invariably characterizing himself as a kind of mayor of the palace.

45 Bernard, , Confins, 321.Google Scholar

46 This section on French commercial dealings with Bū Himāra draws mainly on an extensive collection of documents in AMAE, n.s. 168 and 169 (Contrabande des Armes).

47 AMG, C8, Gen. Delanneau (Com. Division of Oran), 2 Aug. 1906Google Scholar; C18, Prefect of Oran to Gov. Gen., Dec. 19, 1905Google Scholar, no. 11416. Bū Himāra also exported wool to Melilla. FO 174/267, Macleod, to White, , 31 Oct. 1906Google Scholar, no. 53.

48 AMAE, n.s. 168Google Scholar, Aulaire, Saint to Min. of For. Aff., 6 Jan. 1906Google Scholar, no. 5; n.s. 169, Min. of For. Aff. to Tangier, , 14 Feb. 1906Google Scholar, no. 31; Bourmancé, Daniel to Say, Louis, 26 Feb. 1906Google Scholar, no. 35505. L'Afrique Française, no. 2, 1906, p. 57.Google Scholar

49 AMAE, n.s. 168Google Scholar, Gen. Herson, to Gov. Gen., 7 Dec. 1905Google Scholar. AGGA, 30H. 52Google Scholar, Herson, to Gov. Gen., 26 June 1906Google Scholar. AMG, C8, Gen. Delanneau, 2 Aug. 1906.Google Scholar

50 AMAE, n.s. 168Google Scholar, Gov. Gen. to Min. of For. Aff., 12 Dec. 1905, no. 374; n.s. 169, Min. of Interior to Min. of For. Aff., 7 Feb. 1906, no. 211; n.s. 88, Gov. Gen. to Min. of For. Aff., 11 Jan. 1908, no. 319. AMG, D4, Gov. Gen. to Min. of War, 5 Sept. 1908, no. 3110. AGGA, 30H. 52Google Scholar, ‘Note sur les Français en relations avec le Rogui’, 1906. Corbut was director of an insurance company in Paris and in 1905 founded the Syndicat d'Etudes d'El Rarb, whose objective was commercial and industrial investment in Morocco. His chief associates in dealings with Bū Himāra were Jean Hess, a French journalist, and Montagnon, a newspaperman who was also involved in land speculation in another part of Morocco. Their initiative on the Moroccan coast was tragically ended when their boat sank off Melilla in January 1906.

51 AMAE, n.s. 168Google Scholar, Piétri, , Special Commissioner, Sûreté Générale, ‘Rapport au sujet de la contrebande d'armes de guerre’, 20 Nov. 1905.Google Scholar

52 AMAE, n.s. 168Google Scholar, Piétri, Special Commissioner, Générale, Sûreté, ‘Rapport au sujet de la contrabande d'armes de guerre’, 20 Nov. 1905Google Scholar; Gen. Herson, to Gov. Gen., 7 Dec. 1905Google Scholar; Min. of For. Aff. to d'Affaires Tanger, Chargé, 31 Jan. 1906Google Scholar; n.s. 169, Min. of For. Aff. to Madrid, Tanger, and Algeciras, , 6 Feb. 1906Google Scholar; Gov. Gen. to Min. of For. Aff., 11 Feb. 1906, no. 372.

53 AMAE, n.s. 169Google Scholar, Gov. Gen. to Min. of For. Aff., 5 July 1906, no. 5223; n.s. 88, Gov. Gen. to Min. of For. Aff., 11 Jan. 1908, no. 319.

54 AMAE, n.s. 168Google Scholar, Min. of For. Aff. to Aulaire, Saint, 12 Dec. 1905Google Scholar; Prefect of Oran to Gov. Gen., 20 Nov. 1905Google Scholar; Piétri, Special Commissioner, Générale, Sûreté, ‘Rapport au sujet de la contrabande d'armes de guerre’, 20 Nov. 1905.Google Scholar

55 AMAE, n.s. 169Google Scholar, René, St. to Min. of For. Aff., 2 Feb. 1906.Google Scholar

56 AMAE, n.s. 168Google Scholar, Min. of For. Aff. to Gov. Gen., 7 Jan. 1906.

57 Nougaret is reported to have cheated Bū Himāra by selling him cartridges filled with wax. ‘Un reporter parisien chez le Prétendant’, La Dépêche Algérienne, 8 Feb. 1906Google Scholar (title refers to Jean Rodés, who is probably Jean Hess). AMAE, n.s. 169Google Scholar, Bourmancé, to Say, 10 Feb. 1906.Google Scholar

58 AGGA, , 30H. 52Google Scholar, Herson, to Gov. Gen., 19 Jan. 1906Google Scholar, no. 1012.

59 AMAE, , n.s. 168Google Scholar, Prefect of Oran to Gov. Gen., 28 Nov. 1905Google Scholar; 12 Dec. 1905. AMG, D4, Gov. Gen. to Min. of War, 5 Sept. 1908Google Scholar, no. 3110.

60 FO 174/268, Macleod, to Lowther, , 18 May 1907Google Scholar, no. 45.

61 The mining concessions are discussed in some detail in Maldonado, , El Rogui, 346–52Google Scholar; Benhamu, , ‘Bu-Hamara’, 169–71Google Scholar; Bernard, , Confins, 313–15Google Scholar; and Becerra, M., ‘La Région des Guelaya (Rif) et le chemin de fer de Melilla aux mines des Beni-Bou-Ifrour’, Bulletin de la Société de Géographie et d'Archéologie d'Oran, xxix (1909), 367–95.Google Scholar

62 AMAE, n.s. 88Google Scholar, French Commissioner at Oujda to Saint Aulaire, 6 Feb. 1908.Google Scholar

63 Its chief backers were Enrique Macpherson, Clemente Fernandez, Antonio Guel, and the Count of Romanones. The anti-French politician Don Miguel Villanueva was also a strong supporter of the enterprise.

64 One French source claims the Spanish company paid him initially 260,000 pesetas. AMAE, n.s. 88Google Scholar, French Commissioner at Oujda, to Aulaire, Saint, 6 Feb. 1908Google Scholar. Another source suggests it was only 50,000. AMAE, n.s. 88Google Scholar, Gen. Dautelle, (Com. Oran Div.) to Gov. Gen., 6 03 1908, no. 10.Google Scholar

65 Jean Rodès, ‘Le Prétendant.’ Also AMG, D4, French Commissioner at Oujda, to Lyautey, , 21 Feb. 1908Google Scholar, no. 140 (on report from Capt. Ben Khouty).

66 Hamida, Ghomri, ‘Au camp du Prétendant’, L'Echo d'Oran, 9 Dec. 1905.Google Scholar

67 AGGA, 30H. 54Google Scholar, ‘Note pour Monsieur le Chef du Service des Affaires Indigènes et du personnel militaire’, Sept. 26, no. 9086; Prefect of Oran, to Gov. Gen., 8 Nov. 1906Google Scholar; Herson, to Gov. Gen., 17 Nov. 1906, no. 613Google Scholar. AMAE, n.s. 186Google Scholar, Chargé d'Affaires de France à Constantinople to Min. for For. Aff., 1 Oct. 1906, no. 194.

68 Burke, in Prelude to Protectorate (p. 67)Google Scholar refers to him as a transitional figure in Morocco's history.