The 1833 peace of Kütahia satisfied none of its signatories

Evidence

Halil Pasha, the head of the Ottoman navy, was thus dispatched to Alexandria with offers of peace to the Pasha of Egypt. This initiated a long and arduous process of negotiation which culminated in the peace of Kütahia agreed upon in May 1833. In this peace, brokered by the European powers (mainly Russia and France), the Sultan reluctantly conceded to his rebellious vali the eyalets of Egypt, Hijaz and Crete. Furthermore, Ibrahim Pasha was given the eyalets of Acre, Damascus, Tripoli and Aleppo, and after considerable hesitation, the post of muhassil (i.e. collector of taxes) of Adana as well. … Rather than finding his position more secure than before the campaign had started, the Pasha soon discovered that his osensibly improved status was dependent on an annual renewal by the Sultan, and was thus subject to his whims and to the intrigues of various courtiers in Istanbul. For after all, Mehmed Ali was not granted an independent status that would be recognized by the European powers and hence the agreement did not secure for him “the much desired legal independence as a sovereign” that he had been supposedly fighting for. … As such, the agreement ending the Syrian war left none of the principal parties involved completely satisfied. “The Sultan had suffered the vexation of defeat by a contumacious pasha; Muhammad ‘Ali had secured neither independent status nor a controlling influence at the Porte; the western powers were annoyed at the opening which Ibrahim’s victories had offered to the Russians; while the Russians were disappointed at having been unable to entrench themselves more securely at Constantinople.” — Khaled Fahmy, All the Pasha_s Men_ Mehmed Ali, his…, 252

Categorization

• XREF: This resembles the reader’s standing knowledge about how colonial-era agreements among Ottoman, European, and Egyptian actors each left parties dissatisfied — relates to reading purpose on Ottoman Pashas and British Lords.