The Franco-Ottoman Alliance, also known as the Franco-Turkish Alliance, was an alliance established in 1536 between Francis I, King of France and Suleiman I of the Ottoman Empire. The strategic and sometimes tactical alliance was one of the longest-lasting and most important foreign alliances of France, and was particularly influential during the Italian Wars. The Franco-Ottoman military alliance reached its peak with the Invasion of Corsica of 1553 during the reign of Henry II of France.

As the first non-ideological alliance in effect between a Christian and Muslim state, the alliance attracted heavy controversy for its time and caused a scandal throughout Christendom. Carl Jacob Burckhardt (1947) called it "the sacrilegious union of the lily and the crescent". It lasted intermittently for more than two and a half centuries, until the Napoleonic campaign in Ottoman Egypt, in 1798–1801.

Background

Following the Turkish conquest of Constantinople in 1453 by Mehmed II and the unification of swaths of the Middle East under Selim I, Suleiman I, the son of Selim, managed to expand Ottoman rule to Serbia in 1522. The Holy Roman Empire thus entered in direct conflict with the Ottomans.

Some early contacts seem to have taken place between the Ottomans and the French. Philippe de Commines reports that Bayezid II sent an embassy to Louis XI in 1483, while Cem, his brother and rival pretender to the Ottoman throne was being detained in France at Bourganeuf by Pierre d'Aubusson. Louis XI refused to see the envoys, but a large amount of money and Christian relics were offered by the envoy so that Cem could remain in custody in France. Cem was transferred to the custody of Pope Innocent VIII in 1489.

France had signed a first treaty or Capitulation with the Mamluk Sultanate of Egypt in 1500, during the reigns of Louis XII and Sultan Bayezid II, in which the Sultan of Egypt had made concessions to the French and the Catalans, and which would be later extended by Suleiman.

France had already been looking for allies in Central Europe. The ambassador of France Antonio Rincon was employed by Francis I on several missions to Poland and Hungary between 1522 and 1525. At that time, following the 1522 Battle of Bicoque, Francis I was attempting to ally with king Sigismund I the Old of Poland. Finally, in 1524, a Franco-Polish alliance was signed between Francis I and the king of Poland Sigismund I.

A momentous intensification of the search for allies in Central Europe occurred when the French ruler Francis I was defeated at the Battle of Pavia on February 24, 1525, by the troops of Emperor Charles V. After several months in prison, Francis I was forced to sign the humiliating Treaty of Madrid, through which he had to relinquish the Duchy of Burgundy and the Charolais to the Empire, renounce his Italian ambitions, and return his belongings and honours to the traitor Constable de Bourbon. This situation forced Francis I to find an ally against the powerful Habsburg Emperor, in the person of Suleiman the Magnificent.

Alliance of Francis I and Suleiman

The alliance was an opportunity for both rulers to fight against the hegemony of the House of Habsburg. The objective for Francis I was to find an ally against the Habsburgs, although the policy of courting a Muslim power was in reversal of that of his predecessors. The pretext used by Francis I was the protection of the Christians in Ottoman lands, through agreements called "Capitulations of the Ottoman Empire".

King Francis was imprisoned in Madrid when the first efforts at establishing an alliance were made. A first French mission to Suleiman seems to have been sent right after the Battle of Pavia by the mother of Francis I, Louise de Savoie, but the mission was lost on its way in Bosnia. In December 1525 a second mission was sent, led by John Frangipani, which managed to reach Constantinople, the Ottoman capital, with secret letters asking for the deliverance of king Francis I and an attack on the Habsburg. Frangipani returned with an answer from Suleiman, on 6 February 1526:

The plea of the French king nicely corresponded to the ambitions of Suleiman in Europe, and gave him an incentive to attack Hungary in 1526, leading to the Battle of Mohács. The Ottomans were also greatly attracted by the prestige of being in alliance with such a country as France, which would give them better legitimacy in their European dominions.

Meanwhile, Charles V was manoeuvring to form a Habsburg-Persian alliance with Persia, so that the Ottoman Empire would be attacked on its rear. Envoys were sent to Shah Tahmasp I in 1525, and again in 1529, pleading for an attack on the Ottoman Empire.

With the War of the League of Cognac (1526–1530) going on, Francis I continued to look for allies in Central Europe and formed a Franco-Hungarian alliance in 1528 with the Hungarian king Zapolya, who himself had just become a vassal of the Ottoman Empire that same year. In 1528 also, Francis used the pretext of the protection of Christians in the Ottoman Empire to again enter into contact with Suleiman, asking for the return of a mosque to a Christian Church. In his 1528 letter to Francis I Suleiman politely refused, but guaranteed the protection of Christians in his states. He also renewed the privileges of French merchants which had been obtained in 1517 in Egypt.

Francis I lost in his European campaigns, and had to sign the Paix des Dames in August 1529. He was even forced to supply some galleys to Charles V in his fight against the Ottomans. However, the Ottomans would continue their campaigns in Central Europe, and besiege the Habsburg capital in the 1529 siege of Vienna, and again in 1532.

Exchange of embassies

In early July 1532, Suleiman was joined by the French ambassador Antonio Rincon in Belgrade. Antonio Rincon presented Suleiman with a magnificent four-tiered tiara, made in Venice for 115,000 ducats. Rincon also described the Ottoman camp:

Francis I explained to the Venetian ambassador Giorgio Gritti in March 1531 his strategy regarding the Turks:

Ottoman embassies were sent to France, with the Ottoman embassy to France (1533) led by Hayreddin Barbarossa, and the Ottoman embassy to France (1534) led by representatives of Suleiman.

Combined operations (1534–35)
Suleiman ordered Barbarossa to put his fleet at the disposition of Francis I to attack Genoa and the Milanese. In July 1533 Francis received Ottoman representatives at Le Puy, and he would dispatch in return Antonio Rincon to Barbarossa in North Africa and then to the Asia Minor. Suleiman explained that "he could not possibly abandon the King of France, who was his brother". The Franco-Ottoman alliance was by then effectively made.

In 1534 a Turkish fleet sailed against the Habsburg Empire at the request of Francis I, raiding the Italian coast and finally meeting with representatives of Francis in southern France. The fleet went on to capture Tunis in the Conquest of Tunis (1534) on 16 August 1534 and continued raiding the Italian coast with the support of Francis I. In a counter-attack however, Charles V dislodged them in the Conquest of Tunis (1535).

Permanent embassy of Jean de La Forêt (1535–1537)

Trade and religious agreements

Treaties, or capitulations, were passed between the two countries starting in 1528 and 1536. The defeat in the Conquest of Tunis (1535) at the hands of Andrea Doria motivated the Ottoman Empire to enter into a formal alliance with France. Ambassador Jean de La Forêt was sent to Istanbul, and for the first time was able to become permanent ambassador at the Ottoman court and to negotiate treaties.

Jean de La Forêt negotiated the capitulations on 18 February 1536, on the model of previous Ottoman commercial treaties with Venice and Genoa, although they only seem to have been ratified by the Ottomans later, in 1569, with ambassador Claude Du Bourg. These capitulations allowed the French to obtain important privileges, such as the security of the people and goods, extraterritoriality, freedom to transport and sell goods in exchange for the payment of the selamlik and customs fees. These capitulations would in effect give the French a near trade monopoly in seaport-towns that would be known as les Échelles du Levant. Foreign vessels had to trade with Turkey under the French banner, after the payment of a percentage of their trade.

A French embassy and a Christian chapel were established in the town of Galata across the Golden horn from Constantinople, and commercial privileges were also given to French merchants in the Turkish Empire. Through the capitulations of 1535, the French received the privilege to trade freely in all Ottoman ports.  A formal alliance was signed in 1536. The French were free to practice their religion in the Ottoman Empire, and French Catholics were given custody of holy places. The capitulations were again renewed in 1604, and lasted up until the establishment of the Republic of Turkey in 1923.

Military and financial agreements
Jean de la Forêt also had secret military instructions to organize a combined offensive on Italy in 1535: Through the negotiations of de La Forêt with the Grand Vizier Ibrahim Pasha it was agreed that combined military operations against Italy would take place, in which France would attack Lombardy while the Ottoman Empire would attack from Naples. The Ottoman Empire also provided considerable financial support to Francis I. In 1533, Suleiman sent Francis I 100,000 gold pieces, so that he could form a coalition with England and German states against Charles V. In 1535, Francis asked for another 1 million ducats. The military instructions of Jean de la Forêt were highly specific:

Finally, Suleiman intervened diplomatically in favour of Francis on the European scene. He is known to have sent at least one letter to the Protestant princes of Germany to encourage them to ally with Francis I against Charles V. Francis I effectively allied with the Schmalkaldic League against Charles V in 1535.

Italian War of 1536–1538

Franco-Ottoman military collaboration took place during the Italian War of 1536–1538 following the 1536 Treaty negotiated by Jean de La Forêt.

Campaign of 1536

Francis I invaded Savoy in 1536, starting the war. A Franco-Turkish fleet was stationed in Marseille by the end of 1536, threatening Genoa. While Francis I was attacking Milan and Genoa in April 1536, Barbarossa was raiding the Habsburg possessions in the Mediterranean.

In 1536 the French Admiral Baron de Saint-Blancard combined his twelve French galleys with a small Ottoman fleet belonging to Barbarossa in Algiers (an Ottoman galley and 6 galiotes), to attack the island of Ibiza in the Balearic Islands. After failing to capture the tower of Salé, the fleet raided the Spanish coast from Tortosa to Collioure, finally wintering in Marseilles with 30 galleys from 15 October 1536 (the first time a Turkish fleet laid up for the winter in Marseilles).

Joint campaign of 1537

For 1537 important combined operations were agreed upon, in which the Ottomans would attack southern Italy and Naples under Barbarossa, and Francis I would attack northern Italy with 50,000 men. Suleiman led an army of 300,000 from Constantinople to Albania, with the objective of transporting them to Italy with the fleet. The Ottoman fleet gathered in Avlona with 100 galleys, accompanied by the French ambassador Jean de La Forêt. They landed in Castro, Apulia by the end of July 1537, and departed two weeks later with many prisoners. Barbarossa had laid waste to the region around Otranto, carrying about 10,000 people into slavery. Francis however failed to meet his commitment, and instead attacked the Netherlands.

The Ottomans departed from Southern Italy, and instead mounted the siege of Corfu in August 1537. where they were met by the French Admiral Baron de Saint-Blancard with 12 galleys in early September 1537. Saint-Blancard in vain attempted to convince the Ottomans to again raid the coasts of Apulia, Sicily and the March of Ancona, and Suleiman returned with his fleet to Constantinople by mid-September without having captured Corfu. French ambassador Jean de La Forêt became seriously ill and died around that time. Francis I finally penetrated into Italy, and reached Rivoli on 31 October 1537.

For two years, until 1538, Saint-Blancard would accompany the fleet of Barbarossa, and between 1537 and 1538, Saint-Blancard would winter with his galleys in Constantinople and meet with Suleiman. During that time, Saint-Blancard was funded by Barbarossa. The campaign of Saint-Blancard with the Ottomans was written down in Le Voyage du Baron de Saint Blancard en Turquie, by Jean de la Vega, who had accompanied Saint-Blancard in his mission. Although the French accompanied most of the campaigns of Barbarossa, they sometimes refrained from participating in Turkish assaults, and their accounts express horror at the violence of these encounters, in which Christians were slaughtered or taken as captives.

Habsburg-Valois Truce of Nice (1538)

With Charles V unsuccessful in battle and squeezed between the French invasion and the Ottomans, he and Francis I ultimately made peace with the Truce of Nice on 18 June 1538. In the truce, Charles and Francis made an agreement to ally against the Ottomans to expel them from Hungary. Charles V turned his attention to fighting the Ottomans, but could not launch large forces in Hungary due to a raging conflict with the German princes of the Schmalkaldic League. On 28 September 1538 Barbarosa won the major Battle of Preveza against the Imperial fleet. At the end of the conflict, Suleiman set as a condition for peace with Charles V that the latter returns to Francis I the lands that were his by right.

The Franco-Ottoman alliance was crippled for a while however, due to Francis' official change of alliance at Nice in 1538. Open conflict between Charles and Francis would resume in 1542, as well as Franco-Ottoman collaboration, with the 4 July 1541 assassination by Imperial troops of the French Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire Antonio Rincon, as he was travelling through Italy near Pavia.

Italian War of 1542–1546 and Hungary Campaign of 1543

During the Italian War of 1542–46 Francis I and Suleiman I were again pitted against the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, and Henry VIII of England.  The course of the war saw extensive fighting in Italy, France, and the Low Countries, as well as attempted invasions of Spain and England; but, although the conflict was ruinously expensive for the major participants, its outcome was inconclusive. In the Mediterranean, active naval collaboration took place between the two powers to fight against Spanish forces, following a request by Francis I, conveyed by Antoine Escalin des Aimars, also known as Captain Polin.

Failed coordination in the campaign of 1542

In early 1542, Polin successfully negotiated the details of the alliance, with the Ottoman Empire promising to send 60,000 troops against the territories of the German king Ferdinand, as well as 150 galleys against Charles, while France promised to attack Flanders, harass the coasts of Spain with a naval force, and send 40 galleys to assist the Turks for operations in the Levant.

A landing harbour in the north of the Adriatic was prepared for Barberousse, at Marano. The port was seized in the name of France by Piero Strozzi on 2 January 1542.

Polin left Constantinople on 15 February 1542 with a contract from Suleiman outlining the details of the Ottoman commitment for 1542. He arrived in Blois on 8 March 1542 to obtain a ratification of the agreement by Francis I. Accordingly, Francis I designated the city of Perpignan as the objective for the Ottoman expedition, in order to obtain a seaway to Genoa. Polin, after some delays in Venice, finally managed to take a galley to Constantinople on 9 May 1542, but he arrived too late for the Ottomans to launch a sea campaign.

Meanwhile, Francis I initiated the hostilities with Charles V on 20 July 1542, and kept with his part of the agreement by laying siege at Perpignan and attacking Flanders. André de Montalembert was sent to Constantinople to ascertain the Ottoman offensive, but it turned out that Suleiman, partly under the anti-alliance influence of Suleyman Pasha, was unwilling to send an army that year, and promised to send an army twice as strong the following year, in 1543.

When Francis I learnt from André de Montalembert that the Ottomans were not coming, he raised the siege of Perpignan.

Joint siege of Nice (1543)

Most notably, the French forces, led by François de Bourbon and the Ottoman forces, led by Barbarossa, joined at Marseille in August 1543, and collaborated to bombard the city of Nice in the siege of Nice. In this action 110 Ottoman galleys, amounting to 30,000 men, combined with 50 French galleys. The Franco-Ottomans laid waste to the city of Nice, but were confronted by a stiff resistance which gave rise to the story of Catherine Ségurane. They had to raise the siege of the citadel upon the arrival of enemy troops.

Barbarossa wintering in Toulon (1543–1544)

After the siege of Nice, the Ottomans were offered by Francis to winter at Toulon, so that they could continue to harass the Holy Roman Empire, and especially the coast of Spain and Italy, as well the communications between the two countries:

During the wintering of Barbarossa, the Toulon Cathedral was transformed into a mosque, the call to prayer occurred five times a day, and Ottoman coinage was the currency of choice. According to an observer: "To see Toulon, one might imagine oneself at Constantinople".

Throughout the winter, the Ottomans were able to use Toulon as a base to attack the Spanish and Italian coasts, raiding Sanremo, Borghetto Santo Spirito, Ceriale and defeating Italo-Spanish naval attacks. Sailing with his whole fleet to Genoa, Barbarossa negotiated with Andrea Doria the release of Turgut Reis. The Ottomans departed from their Toulon base in May 1544 after Francis I had paid 800,000 ecus to Barbarossa.

Captain Polin in Constantinople (1544)

Five French galleys under Captain Polin, including the superb Réale, accompanied Barbarossa's fleet, on a diplomatic mission to Suleiman. The French fleet accompanied Barbarossa during his attacks on the west coast of Italy on the way to Constantinople, as he laid waste to the cities of Porto Ercole, Giglio, Talamona, Lipari and took about 6,000 captives, but separated in Sicily from Barbarossa's fleet to continue alone to the Ottoman capital. Jerôme Maurand, a priest of Antibes who accompanied Polin and the Ottoman fleet in 1544, wrote a detailed account in Itinéraire d'Antibes à Constantinonple. They arrived in Constantinople on 10 August 1544 to meet with Suleiman and give him an account of the campaign. Polin was back to Toulon on 2 October 1544.

Joint campaign in Hungary (1543–1544)

On land Suleiman was concomitantly fighting for the conquest of Hungary in 1543, as a part of the Little War. French troops were supplied to the Ottomans on the Central European front: in Hungary, a French artillery unit was dispatched in 1543–1544 and attached to the Ottoman Army. Following major sieges such as the siege of Esztergom (1543), Suleiman took a commanding position in Hungary, obtaining the signature of the Truce of Adrianople with the Habsburg in 1547.

Besides the powerful effect of a strategic alliance encircling the Habsburg Empire, combined tactical operations were significantly hampered by the distances involved, the difficulties in communication, and the unpredictable changes of plans on one side or the other. From a financial standpoint, fiscal revenues were also generated for both powers through the ransoming of enemy ships in the Mediterranean. The French Royal House also borrowed large amounts of gold from the Ottoman banker Joseph Nasi and the Ottoman Empire, amounting to around 150,000 écus as of 1565, the repayment of which became contentious in the following years.

French support in the Ottoman-Safavid war (1547)

In 1547, when Sultan Suleiman I attacked Persia in his second campaign of the Ottoman-Safavid War (1532–1555), France sent him the ambassador Gabriel de Luetz to accompany him in his campaign. Gabriel de Luetz was able to give decisive military advice to Suleiman, as when he advised on artillery placement during the Siege of Van.

Consequences
The alliance provided strategic support to, and effectively protected, the kingdom of France from the ambitions of Charles V. It also gave the opportunity for the Ottoman Empire to become involved in European diplomacy and gain prestige in its European dominions. According to historian Arthur Hassall the consequences of the Franco-Ottoman alliance were far-reaching: "The Ottoman alliance had powerfully contributed to save France from the grasp of Charles V, it had certainly aided Protestantism in Germany, and from a French point of view, it had rescued the North German allies of Francis I."'

Political debate

Side effects included a lot of negative propaganda against the actions of France and its "unholy" alliance with a Muslim power. Charles V strongly appealed to the rest of Europe against the alliance of Francis I, and caricatures were made showing the collusion between France and the Ottoman Empire. In the late sixteenth century, Italian political philosopher Giovanni Botero referred to the alliance as "a vile, infamous, diabolical treaty" and blamed it for the extinction of the Valois dynasty. Even the French Huguenot Francois de La Noue denounced the alliance in a 1587 work, claiming that "this confederation has been the occasion to diminish the glory and power of such a flourishing kingdom as France."

Numerous authors intervened to take the defense of the French king for his alliance. Authors wrote about the Ottoman civilization, such as Guillaume Postel or Christophe Richer, in sometimes extremely positive ways. In the 1543 work Les Gestes de Francoys de Valois, Etienne Dolet justified the alliance by comparing it to Charles V's relations with Persia and Tunis.  Dolet also claimed that it should not be "forbidden for a prince to make alliance and seek intelligence of another, whatever creed or law he may be."  The author François de Sagon wrote in 1544 Apologye en défense pour le Roy, a text defending the actions of Francis I by drawing parallels with the parable of the Good Samaritan in the Bible, in which Francis is compared to the wounded man, the Emperor to the thieves, and Suleiman to the Good Samaritan providing help to Francis. Guillaume du Bellay and his brother Jean du Bellay wrote in defense of the alliance, at the same time minimizing it and legitimizing on the ground that Francis I was defending himself against an aggression. Jean de Montluc used examples from Christian history to justify the endeavour to obtain Ottoman support.  Jean de Montluc's brother Blaise de Montluc argued in 1540 that the alliance was permissible because "against one's enemies one can make arrows of any kind of wood." In 1551,  wrote Apologie, faicte par un serviteur du Roy, contre les calomnies des Impériaulx: sur la descente du Turc.

Cultural and scientific exchanges

Cultural and scientific exchanges between France and the Ottoman Empire flourished. French scholars such as Guillaume Postel or Pierre Belon were able to travel to Asia Minor and the Middle East to collect information.

Scientific exchange is thought to have occurred, as numerous works in Arabic, especially pertaining to astronomy were brought back, annotated and studied by scholars such as Guillaume Postel. Transmission of scientific knowledge, such as the Tusi-couple, may have occurred on such occasions, at the time when Copernicus was establishing his own astronomical theories.

Books, such as the Muslim holy text, the Quran, were brought back to be integrated in Royal libraries, such as the Bibliothèque Royale de Fontainebleau, to create a foundation for the Collège des lecteurs royaux, future Collège de France. French novels and tragedies were written with the Ottoman Empire as a theme or background. In 1561, Gabriel Bounin published La Soltane, a tragedy highlighting the role of Roxelane in the 1553 execution of Mustapha, the elder son of Suleiman. This tragedy marks the first time the Ottomans were introduced on stage in France.

International trade
Strategically, the alliance with the Ottoman Empire also allowed France to offset to some extent the Habsburg Empire's advantage in the New World trade, and French trade with the eastern Mediterranean through Marseille indeed increased considerably after 1535. After the Capitulations of 1569, France also gained precedence over all other Christian states, and her authorization was required for when another state wished to trade with the Ottoman Empire.

Military alliance under Henry II

The son of Francis I, Henry II, also sealed a treaty with Suleyman in order to cooperate against the Austrian Navy. This was triggered by the 8 September 1550 conquest of Mahdiya by the Genoese Admiral Andrea Doria on behalf of Charles V. The alliance allowed Henry II to push for French conquests towards the Rhine, while a Franco-Ottoman fleet defended southern France.

Cooperation during the Italian War of 1551–1559
Various military actions were coordinated during the Italian War of 1551–1559. In 1551, the Ottomans, accompanied by the French ambassador Gabriel de Luez d'Aramon, succeeded in the siege of Tripoli.

Joint attacks on the Kingdom of Naples (1552)
In 1552, when Henry II attacked Charles V, the Ottomans sent 100 galleys to the Western Mediterranean. The Ottoman fleet was accompanied by three French galleys under Gabriel de Luez d'Aramon, who accompanied the Ottoman fleet from Istanbul in its raids along the coast of Calabria in Southern Italy, capturing the city of Reggio. The plan was to join with the French fleet of Baron de la Garde and the troops of the Prince of Salerno, but both were delayed and could not join the Ottomans in time. In the Battle of Ponza in front of the island of Ponza with 40 galleys of Andrea Doria, the Franco-Ottoman fleet managed to vanquish them and capture 7 galleys on 5 August 1552. The Franco-Ottoman fleet left Naples to go back to the east on 10 August, missing the Baron de la Garde who reached Naples a week later with 25 galleys and troops. The Ottoman fleet then wintered in Chios, where it was joined by the fleet of Baron de la Garde, ready for naval operations the following year.

Joint invasion of Corsica (1553)

On 1 February 1553, a new treaty of alliance, involving naval collaboration against the Habsburg was signed between France and the Ottoman Empire. In 1553, the Ottoman admirals Dragut and Koca Sinan together with the French squadron raided the coasts of Naples, Sicily, Elba and Corsica. A Franco-Ottoman fleet accomplished an Invasion of Corsica for the benefit of France. The military alliance is said to have reached its peak in 1553.

In 1555, the French ambassador Michel de Codignac, successor to Gabriel de Luetz d'Aramon, is known to have participated to Suleiman's Persian campaign, and to have sailed with the Ottoman fleet in its campaign against Piombino, Elba and Corsica. The Ottoman admiral Turgut Reis was one of the key Ottoman protagonists in these actions.

On 30 December 1557, Henry II wrote a letter to Suleiman, asking him for money, saltpeter, and 150 galleys to be stationed in the West. Through the services of his ambassador Jean Cavenac de la Vigne, Henry II obtained the dispatch of an Ottoman fleet to Italy in 1558, with little effect however apart from the sack of Sorrento. The Ottomans also contributed by the Ottoman invasion of the Balearic islands in 1558. The conflict would finally come to an end with the Peace of Cateau-Cambrésis (1559) and the accidental death of Henry II that same year. The newfound peace between the European powers however created long-lasting disillusionment on the Ottoman side.

Support of Protestantism under Charles IX

Ottoman power was also used by the French in the religious conflicts on the European scene. In 1566, under Charles IX, the French ambassador to the Ottoman Empire intervened in favour of the Dutch Revolt against the Spanish Empire, after a request for Ottoman help by William I of Orange, so that a Dutch-Ottoman alliance was considered and a letter was sent from Suleiman the Magnificent to the "Lutherans" in Flanders, offering troops at the time they would request, and claiming that he felt close to them, "since they did not worship idols, believed in one God and fought against the Pope and Emperor". The Ottoman Empire was indeed known at that time for its religious tolerance. Various religious refugees, such as the Huguenots, some Anglicans, Quakers, Anabaptists or even Jesuits or Capuchins and Jews (Marranos) were able to find refuge at Constantinople and in the Ottoman Empire, where they were given right of residence and worship. Further, the Ottomans supported the Calvinists in Transylvania and Hungary but also in France. The contemporary French thinker Jean Bodin wrote:

The Ottoman Empire was at the height of its power, but for the forty years after these events, France would become embroiled in the bitter French Wars of Religion, and Ottoman power would start to slowly weaken after the 1571 Battle of Lepanto.

In 1572, after the death of the Polish king Sigismund Augustus, who had been under a Polish-Ottoman alliance of his own, Poland elected the French Henri de Valois, rather than Habsburg candidates, partly in order to be more agreeable to the Ottoman Empire. The choice of Henri de Valois had apparently been proposed by the Ottoman Grand Vizier Sokollu Mehmet Pasha. When Henri left to return to France in 1575, he was succeeded by Stephen Báthory of Poland, who also had been supported by the Ottomans in obtaining the Transylvanian throne in 1571.

In 1574, William of Orange and Charles IX of France, through his pro-Huguenot ambassador François de Noailles, Bishop of Dax, tried to obtain the support of the Ottoman Sultan Selim II in order to open a new front against the Spanish King Philip II. Selim II sent his support through a messenger, who endeavoured to put the Dutch in contact with the rebellious Moriscos of Spain and the pirates of Algiers. Selim also sent a great fleet in the Capture of Tunis in October 1574, thus succeeding in reducing Spanish pressure on the Dutch.

French Huguenots were in contact with the Moriscos in plans against Spain in the 1570s. Around 1575, plans were made for a combined attack of Aragonese Moriscos and Huguenots from Béarn under Henri de Navarre against Spanish Aragon, in agreement with the king of Algiers and the Ottoman Empire, but these projects foundered with the arrival of John of Austria in Aragon and the disarmament of the Moriscos.Muslims in Spain, 1500 to 1614 L. P. Harvey p. 343. In 1576, a three-pronged fleet from Constantinople was planned to disembark between Murcia and Valencia while the French Huguenots would invade from the north and the Moriscos accomplish their uprising, but the Ottoman fleet failed to arrive.

Ottoman support for France would continue, as well as support for the Dutch and the English after 1580, and support for Protestants and Calvinists, as a way to counter Habsburg attempts at supremacy in Europe. For a time though, the Ottoman–Safavid War (1578–1590) turned the Ottomans' attention away from Europe.

Ottoman-Persian diplomatic rivalry in Europe

The conflict between the Ottomans and the Persians led the latter to try to forge a counter-acting Habsburg-Persian alliance with other European powers against the Ottoman Empire, particularly with the Habsburg Empire, some of the Italian states and Habsburg Spain. This plan was formalized by two major diplomatic endeavours: the Persian embassy to Europe (1599–1602), and the Persian embassy to Europe (1609–1615). The results however seem to have been limited.

Continuation
For the three centuries following the beginning of the alliance, the Ottoman effectively continued to respect their commitment to protect Christian communities in their realm. The French kings succeeding to Francis I also generally maintained their pro-Ottoman policy. Numerous Ottoman embassies were received at the French court: from Suleiman I to Francis I in 1533, from Suleiman I to Charles IX in 1565 (embassy of Hajji Murad), from Selim II to Charles IX in 1571, from Murad III to Henry III in 1581.

Henry IV

Even before Henry IV's accession to the throne, the French Huguenots were in contact with the Moriscos in plans against Habsburg Spain in the 1570s. Around 1575, plans were made for a combined attack of Aragonese Moriscos and Huguenots from Béarn under Henri de Navarre against Spanish Aragon, in agreement with the Bey of Algiers and the Ottoman Empire, but these projects foundered with the arrival of John of Austria in Aragon and the disarmament of the Moriscos. In 1576, a three-pronged fleet from Constantinople was planned to disembark between Murcia and Valencia while the French Huguenots would invade from the north and the Moriscos accomplish their uprising, but the Ottoman fleet failed to arrive.

Henry IV continued the policy of Franco-Ottoman alliance and received an embassy from Mehmed III in 1601. In 1604, a "Peace Treaty and Capitulation" was signed between Henry IV and the Ottoman Sultan Ahmed I, giving numerous advantages to France in the Ottoman Empire. An embassy was sent to Tunisia in 1608, led by François Savary de Brèves.

An embassy was again sent to Louis XIII in 1607, and from Mehmed IV to Louis XIV in 1669 in the person of ambassador Müteferrika Süleyman Ağa, who created a sensation at the French court and even triggered a Turkish fashion. The Orient came to have a strong influence in French literature, as about 50% of French travel guides in the 16th century were dedicated to the Ottoman Empire.

French influence remained paramount at Constantinople, and the Capitulations were renewed in 1604, forcing all nations to trade under the protection and flag of France, except for England and Venice which were competing, with the Dutch Republic, for influence in the Levant. In the context of competition for influence between Western powers, relations between France and the Ottoman Empire started to cool significantly. In 1643, the French lost the custody of the Holy Places to the Greeks.

Revival of the alliance under Louis XIV

Initially, the sentiment of Louis towards the Ottoman Empire seems to have been quite negative, and French troops assisted the Austrians against the Turks at the 1664 Battle of Saint-Gothard, and the Venetians against the Turks at the siege of Candia in 1669 under François de Beaufort. One of the reasons was that Louis XIV was in a shifting alliance with the Habsburgs, especially through his marriage with Marie-Thérèse of Spain in 1660. Louis's mother, Anne of Austria, was a Habsburg too.

The Barbary slave trade and Ottoman corsairs originating from Ottoman Algeria were a major problem throughout the centuries, leading to regular punitive expeditions by France (1661, 1665, 1682, 1683, 1688). French admiral Abraham Duquesne fought the Barbary corsairs in 1681 and bombarded Algiers between 1682 and 1683, to help Christian captives.

In 1673, Louis sent a fleet to the Dardanelles and obtained new capitulations recognizing him as sole protector of the Catholics. Soon Louis revived the alliance to facilitate his expansionist policies. Louis refrained from entering into a formal alliance with the Ottoman Empire, but maintained a cautious neutrality favourable to the Turks, encouraged them to open a new front against the Habsburgs, and effectively took advantage of their conflict with the Holy Roman Empire to further the territorial interests of France. In 1679 and 1680, Louis through his envoy Guilleragues encouraged the Ottoman Grand Vizier Kara Mustafa to intervene in the Magyar Rebellion against the Habsburg, but without success. Louis communicated to the Turks that he would never fight on the side of the Austrian Emperor Leopold I, and he instead massed troops at the eastern frontier of France. These reassurances encouraged the Turks not to renew the 20-year 1664 Vasvar truce with Austria and to move to the offensive. From 1683 and for a period of sixteen years, the Holy Roman Empire would be occupied in fighting the Ottoman Empire in the Great Turkish War. Louis refused to participate in the Holy League, a coalition of European powers against the Ottomans, adopting a position of neutrality, and encouraged Mehmed IV to persevere in his fight against the Habsburgs. Pamphleters and poets would criticize the position of Louis, and reinforce the unity of the League, by describing a battle between European "Liberty" on the one hand and "Eastern despotism" associated with "French absolutism" on the other.

The Ottoman Grand Vizier Kara Mustafa almost captured Vienna, but was finally repulsed at the Battle of Vienna in 1683. On that occasion, Louis not only declined to help the Austrians, but on the contrary tried to prevent John III Sobieski from saving the city of Vienna, and he used the opportunity to attack cities in Alsace and parts of southern Germany. He was able to sign the Truce of Ratisbon on 15 August 1684, giving him several territories which covered the frontier and protected France from foreign invasion.

In 1688, Louis again attacked the Habsburg Empire, in effect relieving pressure from the Ottomans. Louis was reviled for this action, and was called:

The Ottomans were able to stage a counter-attack and succeeded in the siege of Belgrade (1690), but they were finally defeated however in 1699 with the Treaty of Carlowitz.

Cultural exchanges

By the end of the 17th century, the first major defeats of the Ottoman Empire reduced the perceived threat in European minds, which led to an artistic craze for Turkish things. There was a fashion for Turkish things with Turquerie, just as there was a fashion for Chinese things with Chinoiserie, both of which became constitutive components of the Rococo style. Orientalism started to become hugely popular, first with the works of Jean-Baptiste van Mour, who had accompanied the embassy of Charles de Ferriol to Constantinople 1699 and stayed there until the end of his life in 1737, and later with the works of Boucher or Fragonard.

French literature also was greatly influenced. In 1704 was published the first French version of One Thousand and One Nights. French authors used the East as a way to enrich their philosophical work and a pretext to write comments on the West: Montesquieu wrote the Lettres Persannes in 1721, a satirical essay on the West, Voltaire used the Oriental appeal to write Zaïre (1732) and Candide (1759). French travelers of the 17th century, such as Jean de Thévenot or Jean-Baptiste Tavernier routinely visited the Ottoman Empire.

There were also numerous culinary influences. Coffee was introduced to Marseille by Pierre de La Roque in 1664, but the fashion for coffee in Paris was triggered by the Ottoman ambassador to Louis XIV, Suleiman Aga, in 1669. Fashionable coffee-shops emerged such as the famous Café Procope, the first coffee-shop of Paris, in 1689. In the French high society wearing turbans and caftans became fashionable, as well as lying on rugs and cushions.

A carpet industry façon de Turquie ("in the manner of Turkey") was developed in France in the reign of Henry IV by Pierre Dupont, who was returning from the Levant, and especially rose to prominence during the reign of Louis XIV. The Tapis de Savonnerie especially exemplify this tradition ("the superb carpets of the Savonnerie, which long rivalled the carpets of Turkey, and latterly have far surpassed them") which was further adapted to local taste and developed with the Gobelins carpets. This tradition also spread to England where it revived the English carpet industry in the 18th century.

Continued support from Louis XV to the Revolution

Ottoman embassies

In the early 18th century, the Ottoman Sultan Ahmed III (1703–1730) endeavoured to send an embassy to France in order to formally establish France as a strategic ally against the common Russian and Austrian enemy. In 1720, Mehmed Efendi was assigned as Ottoman ambassador to Louis XV and sent to Paris. His embassy of eleven months was notable for being the first ever foreign representation of a permanent nature for the Ottoman Empire. During 1721–22, he visited France on an extensive fact-finding mission, with the objective of gathering information for the modernization of the Ottoman Empire. On his return to the Ottoman capital, Mehmed Çelebi presented his contacts, experiences and observations to the Sultan in the form of a book, a Sefâretnâme. Another embassy, led by Mehmed Said Efendi would visit France in 1742.

Diplomatic and technical collaboration

Throughout the period, contacts were varied and multiple. France was willing to help in order to maintain strategic balance in Europe. Through its intervention and that of Ambassador Louis de Villenneuve in negotiating the 1739 Treaty of Belgrade, France effectively supported the Ottoman Empire into maintaining a strong presence in Europe against Austria for several more decades, and "re-emerged in its traditional role as the Ottomans' best friend in Christendom".

Also, as the Ottoman Empire was losing ground militarily during the 18th century, it made numerous efforts to recruit French experts for its modernization. The French officer and adventurer Claude-Alexandre de Bonneval (1675–1747) went in the service of Sultan Mahmud I, converted to Islam, and endeavoured to modernize the Ottoman Army, creating cannon foundries, powder and musket factories and a military engineering school. Another officer François Baron de Tott was involved in the reform efforts for the Ottoman military. He succeeded in having a new foundry built to make howitzers, and was instrumental in the creation of mobile artillery units. He built fortifications on the Bosphorus and started a naval science course that laid the foundation stone for the later Turkish Naval Academy.

Louis XVI

Under Louis XVI from 1783, a French Military Mission was sent to the Ottoman Empire to train the Turks in naval warfare and fortification building. Up to the French revolution in 1789, about 300 French artillery officers and engineers were active in the Ottoman Empire to modernize and train artillery units. From 1784,  reached Constantinople with 12 experts. The same year, French engineering officers André-Joseph Lafitte-Clavé and Joseph-Monnier de Courtois arrived to instruct engineering drawings and techniques in the new Turkish engineering school Mühendishâne-i Hümâyûn established by the Grand Vizier Halil Hamid Pasha. Mostly French textbooks were used on mathematics, astronomy, engineering, weapons, war techniques and navigation. However, all instructors had to leave with the end of the Franco-Ottoman alliance in 1798.

Revolutionary France

This policy initially continued during the French Revolution, as France was clearly in need of an eastern diversion against its continental enemies. For the Ottoman Empire, the French Revolution was a godsend, since conflict between European powers could only weaken the states that were its traditional enemies. For Sultan Selim III, this was a golden opportunity to modernize, and achieve the "New Order" (Nizam-i Jedid). He established permanent embassies in several European countries, and turned to France for help. Various experts were sent, and in 1795, French envoy extraordinaire  attempted to establish a Treaty of Alliance. A young artillery officer by the name of Napoleon Bonaparte was also to be sent to Constantinople in 1795 to help organize Ottoman artillery. He did not go, for just days before he was to embark for the Near East he proved himself useful to the Directory by putting down a Parisian mob in the whiff of grapeshot and was kept in France.

In 1796, General Aubert-Dubayet was sent to the Ottoman court with artillery equipment, and French artillerymen and engineers to help with the development of the Ottoman arsenals and foundries. Infantry and cavalry officers were also to train the Spahis and Janissaries, but they were frustrated by the opposition of the Janissaries. This relationship would sour with the ascent of Napoleon I.

Epilogue: Napoleon I

With the advent of Napoleon I, France adopted a strongly expansionist policy which put it in direct contact with the Ottoman Empire. Following the Treaty of Campo Formio in 1797, France acquired possessions in the Mediterranean such as the Ionian islands as well as former Venetian bases on the coast of Albania and Greece. Relations with the Ottoman Empire became all of a sudden strained. Napoleon Bonaparte invaded Egypt in 1798 and fought against the Ottomans to establish a French presence in the Middle East, with the ultimate dream of linking with Tippoo Sahib in India. Although the long period of Franco-Ottoman friendship was now over, Napoleon I still claimed great respect for Islam, and appealed to the long history of friendly relations between the Ottoman Empire and France:

Napoleon had toppled the Mamluk beys, the effective rulers of Egypt under nominal Ottoman suzerainty, but still raised the French flag side by side with the Ottoman banner throughout the Egyptian territory, claiming his love for Islam, and saying that they were saving the Ottomans from the Mamluks. Selim III however immediately declared a Jihad and sought the help of Britain and Russia, who both felt both threatened by Napoleon's conquests. On January 3, 1799, the Ottoman Empire allied with Russia, and two days later with Great Britain.

Britain took the opportunity to ally with the Ottoman Empire in order to repel Napoleon's invasion, intervening militarily during the siege of Acre with Admiral William Sidney Smith in 1799, and under Ralph Abercromby at the Battle of Abukir in 1801. By 1802, the French were completely vanquished in the Middle East.

A final, but short-lived, alliance

Soon however, in 1803, France and Great Britain were again at war, and Napoleon went to great lengths to try to convince the Ottoman Empire to fight against Russia in the Balkans and join his anti-Russian coalition. On its side, Russia vied for Ottoman favour, and succeeded in signing a Treaty of Defensive Alliance in 1805.

Napoleon continued his efforts to win the Ottoman Empire to his cause. He sent General Horace Sebastiani as envoy extraordinary. Napoleon promised to help the Ottoman Empire recover lost territories. He wrote to the Sultan:

In February 1806, following Napoleon's remarkable victory in the Battle of Austerlitz in December 1805 and the ensuing dismemberment of the Holy Roman Empire, Selim III finally refused to ratify the Russian and British alliances, and recognized Napoleon as Emperor, formally opting for an alliance with France "our sincere and natural ally", and war with Russia and Britain. He also sent Muhib Efendi to Paris as ambassador (1806–1811). Selim III's decisions in favour of France triggered the 1806 Russo-Turkish War and the 1807 Anglo-Turkish War. Selim III repelled the British fleet of John Thomas Duckworth with the help of Sebastiani, but lost several major encounters against Russia, and he was finally toppled by his Janissaries as he was trying to reform his army, and replaced by Sultan Mustafa IV. Mustafa IV however, persisted with the Franco-Ottoman alliance, and sent ambassador Halet Efendi to Paris to work out the details. Concurrently, Napoleon also formed a Franco-Persian alliance in 1807, through the signature of the Treaty of Finkenstein.

In a final reversal however, Napoleon I finally vanquished Russia at the Battle of Friedland in July 1807. The alliance between France and the Ottoman Empire was maintained, and a peace settlement was brokered between Russia and the Ottomans, but the territories the Ottomans had been promised (Moldavia and Wallachia) through the Treaty of Tilsit were never returned, although the Ottomans themselves had complied with their part of the agreement by moving their troops south of the Danube. Faced with betrayal by Russia, and the failure of France to have the agreement enforced, the Ottoman Empire, now ruled by Sultan Mahmud II, finally signed on 5 January 1809 a Treaty of Peace, Commerce and Secret Alliance with Great Britain, which was now at war with both France and Russia. In 1812, through the Treaty of Bucharest, the Ottoman Empire and Russia agreed to make peace, just as Russia was anxious to liberate this southern front in anticipation of Napoleon's Invasion of Russia, with Russia keeping Bessarabia and the Ottomans regaining Wallachia and Moldavia. In the post-Napoleonic world, at the 1815 Congress of Vienna, the Ottoman Empire was still recognized as an essential part of the European status quo.

Crimean War and Syria

In the Crimean War, a French-British-Ottoman alliance against Russia was signed on 12 March 1854.

In another example of cooperation, in 1860, France later intervened in the Ottoman territory of Syria, with the agreement of the Ottoman Empire, with the objective to fulfill its mission to protect Christians in the Middle East, following massacres of Maronite Christians. At that time, France, led by Emperor Napoleon III, claimed to continue its ancient role as protector of Christians in the Ottoman Empire.

See also
 French–Habsburg rivalry
 Habsburg–Persian alliance
 International relations, 1648–1814
 Turco-Calvinism

Notes

References

 Robert A. Kann A History of the Habsburg Empire, 1526–1918 University of California Press, 1980
 William Miller The Ottoman Empire and Its Successors, 1801–1927 Routledge, (1927; reprinted 1966)  (1st ed. 1913, 2nd ed. 1922)
 Roger Bigelow Merriman Suleiman the Magnificent 1520–1566 READ BOOKS, 2007

 Fatma Müge Göçek East Encounters West: France and the Ottoman Empire in the Eighteenth Century Oxford University Press US, 1987
 Jack Goody Islam in Europe Wiley-Blackwell, 2004
 McCabe, Ina Baghdiantz 2008 Orientalism in early Modern France Berg
 Peter Malcolm Holt, Ann K. S. Lambton, Bernard Lewis The Cambridge History of Islam Cambridge University Press, 1977
 Inari Karsh Empires of the Sand: The Struggle for Mastery in the Middle East, 1789–1923 Harvard University Press, 2001
 Harold Lamb Suleiman the Magnificent – Sultan of the East READ BOOKS, 2008
 Daniel Goffman The Ottoman Empire and early modern Europe Cambridge University Press, 2002
 Roger Crowley, Empire of the sea, 2008 Faber & Faber
 Garnier, Edith L'Alliance Impie Editions du Felin, 2008, Paris  Interview
 – Senior Honors Thesis in History
 Yann Bouvier, « Récits de voyage et représentation de l'espace. La Méditerranée de Jérôme Maurand, un espace vécu », Mémoire de Master, Dir. par Pierre-Yves Beaurepaire, Université de Nice, 2007, 292 p.
 Yann Bouvier, « Antoine Escalin des Aimars (1498?–1578) – De la Garde-Adhémar au siège de Nice, le parcours d'un Ambassadeur de François Ier », Recherches Régionales, Nice, Conseil Général des Alpes-Maritimes, n°188, Octobre-décembre 2007, 28 pp.
 Mathieu Grenet, « Muslim missions to early modern France, c.1610-c.1780 : notes for a social history of cross-cultural diplomacy », Journal of Early Modern History'', Vol. 19, No. 2-3 (2015): 223–244.

Further reading

Bilateral relations of the Ottoman Empire
Military alliances involving France
Military alliances involving the Ottoman Empire
Suleiman the Magnificent
16th-century military alliances
France–Turkey military relations
Francis I of France
1530s establishments in France
1536 establishments in the Ottoman Empire
France–Ottoman Empire relations
Military alliances involving Turkey


France has had a national women's curling championship since 1971.

External links
Source

Curling competitions in France
Women's sports competitions in France


Verville is a French and French Canadian surname which could mean:
 towards the town, from the French words , meaning "towards", and , meaning "town"; or
 green town, from the French , meaning "green", and , meaning "town".

It can also be a variant of Vervelle, which is derived from a word that means "metal keeper" or "ring through which a bolt is secured".

Verville (Merry Point, Virginia) is listed on the National Register of Historic Places in Lancaster County, Virginia

The surname may refer to:
 Alfred V. Verville (1890–1970), an American aviation pioneer
 Alphonse Verville (1864–1921), a Canadian politician and trade unionist
 Elizabeth Verville, an American diplomat for the U.S. State Department
 François Béroalde de Verville (Paris, 1556–1626), a French Renaissance novelist, poet and intellectual
 Joseph-Achille Verville (1887–1937), a Canadian politician and Liberal Party member of the Canadian House of Commons
 Monique Roy Verville (1961–), a politician from Quebec, Canada

See also
 Vierville (disambiguation)
 Green City (disambiguation)

References


The Salad Bowl strike was a series of strikes, mass pickets, boycotts and secondary boycotts that began on August 23, 1970 and led to the largest farm worker strike in U.S. history. The strike was led by the United Farm Workers against the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. The Salad Bowl strike was only in part a jurisdictional strike, for many of the actions taken during the event were not strikes. The strike led directly to the passage of the California Agricultural Labor Relations Act in 1975.

Background
Collective bargaining rights for most hourly workers in the United States were first given legal protection in 1933 by Section 7a of the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA). Although NIRA did not specifically exempt agricultural laborers from the protection of the Act, the Roosevelt administration, eager to win the political support of farm-state members of Congress, argued that farm workers were excluded. When the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) was enacted in 1935, it specifically exempted agricultural workers due to pressure from the "farm bloc" in Congress. The NLRA was not the only federal law to discriminate against farm workers; the Social Security Act of 1935 and Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 also excluded them. Although a number of attempts were made in the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s to organize farm laborers, these efforts were unsuccessful.

In August 1966, the National Farm Workers Association (NFWA) and Agricultural Workers Organizing Committee (AWOC), two unrecognized and relatively minor labor unions claiming organizing jurisdiction over farm workers in California, merged to form the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee (the predecessor organization to the United Farm Workers). Adopting the philosophy of pacifism in the face of often violent reaction to its organizing efforts and engaging in strikes, hunger strikes, boycotts and secondary boycotts (including the successful Delano grape strike), marches, rallies and cutting-edge public relations campaigns, the United Farm Workers (UFW) began organizing large numbers of agricultural laborers into unions. In some cases, the UFW even won recognition and negotiated contracts.

Strike
By 1969, the UFW was on the verge of winning its four years old Delano grape strike. In June 1969, about 25 small growers broke ranks with the rest of the industry, and by the end of July 1970 the strike had ended. The UFW believed that success over the Delano grape growers would lead hundreds of growers to recognize the union and negotiate contracts with the union.

But the UFW was not the only union to see the end of the Delano grape strike as an opportunity. Six thousand drivers and packing workers in the Salinas Valley in California, represented by the Teamsters, struck on July 17, 1970 effectively preventing most of the nation's summer lettuce crop from reaching consumers. The price of iceberg lettuce tripled overnight, and thousands of acres of lettuce were plowed under as crops spoiled on the ground. The strike ended on July 23, but the contract included a special agreement by the growers to give the Teamsters, not the UFW, access to farms and the right to organize workers into unions.

The UFW, which had long asserted jurisdiction over the field workers, was outraged, especially when the Teamsters signed a contract with the growers days later without having to do much organizing or build support among the workers. Even as UFW leader César Chávez went on a hunger strike to protest the Teamsters' actions and a state district court imposed a temporary injunction to preempt UFW members from walking off the job, the UFW held secret talks with the Teamsters to avert a strike by the UFW. An agreement to return jurisdiction over the field workers to the farm union was reached on August 12, and FreshPict Foods (then owned by the Purex Corporation) and Inter-Harvest (part of the United Fruit Company) broke ranks with the other lettuce growers and signed contracts with the UFW.

But the August 12 agreement collapsed, and 5,000–7,000 UFW workers struck the Salinas Valley growers on August 23 in what was the largest farm worker strike in U.S. history. More workers walked off the job in the next few weeks, while other unions supported the strike, shipments of fresh lettuce nationwide almost ceased, and the price of lettuce doubled almost overnight. Lettuce growers lost $500,000 a day. A state district court enjoined Chávez personally and the UFW as an organization from engaging in picketing, but both Chávez and the union refused to obey the court's orders. In late September 1970, the UFW asked consumers to join in a nationwide boycott of all lettuce which had not been picked by members of the United Farm Workers. Violence, sporadic at first but increasingly widespread, began to occur in the fields. On November 4, 1970 a UFW regional office was bombed.

On December 4 federal marshals arrested Chávez and, for the first time in his life, César Chávez was put in jail. Two days later, he was visited in the Monterey County jail in Salinas by former Olympic gold medal-winning decathlete Rafer Johnson and Ethel Kennedy, widow of slain Senator Robert F. Kennedy. Kennedy and Johnson were attacked by an anti-union mob on the steps of the jail, and only intervention by city police, Monterey county sheriff's deputies, and the Brown Berets prevented a riot and injury to the visitors. Chávez was released by the Supreme Court of California on December 23, but the next day called a strike against six additional lettuce growers.

The bitter strike ended on March 26, 1971 when the Teamsters and UFW signed a new jurisdictional agreement reaffirming the UFW's right to organize field workers.

Impact
The Salad Bowl strike did not end the jurisdictional disagreement between the Teamsters and the UFW.  The Teamsters resumed their dispute with the UFW in December 1972, which led to further extensive disruptions in the state agricultural industry, mass picketing, mass arrests, and extensive violence. By April 1973, the UFW was "fighting for our lives" and threatening to launch a nationwide boycott of any grower which signed a contract with the Teamsters. Thousands of UFW members began picketing in the fields on April 15, 1973. Mass arrests quickly occurred, and many county jails were soon overflowing with detainees. The organizing battles between the two unions became violent with audacious and brutal attacks on UFW members day and night. The UFW appeared to be losing the battle physically, legally, and organizationally. The violence worsened; seventy farm workers were attacked on July 31, a UFW picketer was shot on August 3, five firebombs were thrown at UFW picket lines on August 9, two UFW members were shot on August 11, and a UFW picketer was shot to death on August 16, 1973.

With the UFW beginning to buckle under the financial, legal, and organizational stress of the jurisdictional dispute, Chávez entered into talks with the Teamsters on August 6 but quit them on August 10. But the Teamsters, too, had suffered greatly (it is possible that the FBI still suspected the union of having links with organised crime and that this was bringing a lot of unwarranted attention focused onto The Mob), and the day after the peace talks ended the Teamsters shocked other unions and many growers by repudiating all the contracts they had signed since the new round of battles had begun.

Talks resumed, and a tentative agreement was reached on September 27, 1973 in which the Teamsters again agreed to leave jurisdiction over farm field workers to the UFW.

By late 1974, many observers were concluding that the UFW was no longer a viable force.  In July it was forced to end picketing at some grape fields near Delano. Newspaper columnists suggested in June that the UFW no longer had any capacity to fight, and by February 1975 had concluded the union had no future.

Enactment of CALRA
The ongoing fight between the Teamsters and UFW and its effect on UFW's organizational viability led César Chávez to seriously consider and advocate for legal reform in 1974. Although Jerry Brown had been elected Governor of California in November 1974, Brown's election was not enough to win passage of legislation.  The UFW knew it had to make a strong political showing in order to push the California State Legislature to act.

Although it considered mass picketing, rallies, and more boycotts, the UFW worried that it had lost the support of farm workers and that such events would only highlight the union's political weakness. Instead, the UFW settled on a  march by a small group of UFW leaders from San Francisco to the E & J Gallo Winery in Modesto. The march would be dramatic, but not require large numbers of participants. Although just a few hundred marchers left San Francisco on February 22, 1975, more than 15,000 people had joined them by the time they reached Modesto on March 1.

The dramatic success of the Modesto march energized the farm labor movement in California, and Governor Brown quickly began pushing for labor law reform. The march may have been the capstone, but it was the Delano grape boycott's success which brought the growers to the table. "The grape boycott scared the heck out of the farmers, all of us," said one major grower. The march brought politicians and the Teamsters to the table.

Broad agreement on a bill was reached on May 7, 1975 just 68 days after the Modesto march. The California State Senate passed the bill on May 26, and the California State Assembly passed the bill two days later. Governor Brown signed the legislation into law on June 4, 1975. The act went into effect on August 28, 1975.

After hundreds of elections under the law in its first two years, the UFW and Teamsters finally signed a long-lasting jurisdictional agreement in March 1977, and the UFW ended its boycotts of lettuce, grapes, and wine in February 1978.

References
Notes

Citations

Bibliography

1970 labor disputes and strikes
1971 labor disputes and strikes
United Farm Workers
Cesar Chavez
Agriculture and forestry labor disputes in the United States
Agricultural labor in the United States
Labor disputes in California
Agriculture in California
History of California
Hispanic and Latino American history
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
1970 in the United States
August 1971 events in the United States
1970 in California
1971 in California
1970s strikes in the United States


The CIA publishes organizational charts of its agency. Here are a few examples.

Executive offices
Previously, the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) oversaw the Intelligence Community (IC), serving as the president's principal intelligence advisor, additionally serving as head of the Central Intelligence Agency. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 amended the National Security Act to provide for a Director of National Intelligence who would assume some of the roles formerly fulfilled by the DCI, with a separate Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. The DCI's title now is "Director of the Central Intelligence Agency" (DCIA), serving as head of the CIA.

Currently, the Central Intelligence Agency answers directly to the Director of National Intelligence, although the CIA Director may brief the President directly. The CIA has its budget approved by the US Congress, a subcommittee of which see the line items. The intelligence community, however, does not take direct orders from the Congress. The National Security Advisor is a permanent member of the National Security Council, responsible for briefing the President with pertinent information collected by all 16 US Intelligence Community agencies are under the policy, but not necessarily budgetary, authority of the Director of National Intelligence.

The effect of the personalities of the DCIs on the structure and behavior of the Agency and indeed the IC is analyzed in Painter's dissertation on "Early Leader Effects" of Donovan, Dulles and Hoover.

Until the creation of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the director of the CIA met regularly with the president to issue daily reports on ongoing operations. After the creation of the post of DNI, currently Avril Haines, the report is now given by the DNI, who oversees all US intelligence activities, including intelligence community operations outside of CIA jurisdiction. Former CIA Director Porter Goss, who had been a CIA officer, denied this has had a diminishing effect on morale, but promoted his mission to reform the CIA into the lean and agile "counter-terrorism"-focused force he believes it should be.

The Deputy Director of the CIA (DDCIA) assists the director in his or her duties as head of the CIA and exercises the powers of the director when the director's position is vacant or in the director's absence or disability. Either the director or deputy director may be a military officer, but both positions may not be filled, at the same time, by military officers.

The third-highest office and highest non-political office of the CIA, which manages day-to-day operations and budget, was known as Executive Director or from July 5, 2006 also as Associate Deputy Director (ADD) and was renamed Chief Operating Officer (COO) of the CIA in 2017.

Relationship with Congress

There have been various arrangements to handle the CIA's relationship with Congress. It began with a single position  named the "legislative liaison" which later became the "legislative counsel". Eventually it became an office. In the 1970s, Congressional inquiries demanded a great increase in staffing and a reorganization. In the 1980s, several more reorganizations and renamings followed. Near the end of the 1980s, the office was named the Office of Congressional Affairs and as of 2009, has kept that name. See also  CIA Office of Congressional Affairs

Support to the military
As the DCIA's principal adviser and representative on military issues, the Associate Director for Military Support (AD/MS), a senior general officer, coordinates CIA efforts to provide Joint Force commanders, who are principally consumers of national-level intelligence but producers of operational intelligence. The AD/MS also supports Department of Defense officials who oversee military intelligence training and the acquisition of intelligence systems and technology.  John A. Gordon was the first AD/MS, before the creation of ODNI. There is also an Associate Deputy Director for Operations for Military Affairs (ADDO/MA)

The Office of Military Affairs provides intelligence and operational support to the US armed forces.

Covert Action Authorities

President George W. Bush, in creating the National Clandestine Service (NCS), set a clear policy that the CIA would be in charge of all human intelligence (HUMINT) operations. NCS (formerly the Directorate of Operations, and earlier the "Directorate of Plans"), performs clandestine human intelligence collection, and conducts deniable psychological operations (psyops) and paramilitary operations.

Special Activities Division (SAD) is the NCS's unit responsible for Covert Action and "Special Activities".  These special activities include the covert political influence and paramilitary operations.  Special Operations Group (SOG) is the element within SAD responsible for paramilitary operations. They recruit solely from the Joint Special Operations Command and are then trained through an extensive course to become a clandestine intelligence officer. This unit is the most secretive and one of the most elite special operations forces in the world.

Covert Action authorities come from the National Security Act of 1947.  President Ronald Reagan issued Executive Order 12333 titled "United States Intelligence Activities" in 1984.  This order defined covert action as both political and military activities that the US Government could legally deny and granted them exclusively to the CIA.   The CIA was also designated as the sole authority under the 1991 Intelligence Authorization Act and mirrored in Title 50 of the United States Code Section 413(e).

The Pentagon commissioned a study to determine whether the CIA or the Department of Defense (DoD) should conduct covert action paramilitary operations. Their study determined that the CIA should maintain this capability and be the sole government agency conducting covert action.  The DoD found that it does not have the legal authority to conduct covert action nor the agility to carry out these type of missions.

Proposed support to Homeland Security
A great sensitivity remains about the CIA having domestic responsibilities, but it clearly will, on occasions, collect information outside the US that relates directly to domestic security. The CIA, for example, is more likely to obtain HUMINT on terrorists than the very limited foreign resources of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

The DHS, like the military, is seen principally as a consumer of national intelligence, but its border and transportation security functions also produce intelligence. At present, however, there is no well-defined way for DHS to task intelligence collection agencies with its requirements. One proposal suggests using the AD/MS as a prototype, to create an AD/Homeland Security in the CIA, and possibly an equivalent position in the U.S. Justice Department, which, through the FBI and other agencies, legally collects domestic intelligence. This proposal is one of many to improve coordination and avoid intelligence failures caused by not "connecting the dots", when the dots are held by different agencies.

National estimates
Prior to 2004, CIA had two analytic roles: the main effort based in the Directorate of Intelligence, which used internal experts to analyze data collected by CIA, National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), the military collection organizations, and other parts of the intelligence community.  Many of these reports were on current subjects, such as the status of a revolutionary group, or the technical details of a new Chinese factory.

Another function, however, was preparing "estimates", which try to predict the future. Estimates are a product of the intelligence community as a whole. National Intelligence Estimates were the most extensively coordinated documents, often that could be scheduled on a regular basis, such as a regular report on Soviet intentions. Special National Intelligence Estimates (SNIE) were quick-response publications, often providing guidance in a crisis, but were still interagency consensus rather than CIA alone.

CIA had a separate and prestigious office, going by different names and organizations, such as the Office of National Estimates, Board of National Estimates, or a set of National Intelligence Officers, which would seek out the consensus of all the intelligence agencies, and then have some of the most senior analysts write a draft. The idea of such estimates is often credited to Sherman Kent, sometimes called the father of US intelligence analysis, with special emphasis on the production of estimates. This function is now in the National Intelligence Council of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Originally defined in 1950, this responsibility stated "CIA is now in the business of producing what are called National Intelligence Estimates (NIE) along the lines laid down in NSC 50. These papers are interdepartmental in character, designed to focus all available intelligence on a problem of importance to the national security." In the early days of the process, CIA used the State Department's intelligence staff for drafting the NIEs, but a "small top level Office of National Estimates" was set up to integrate the departmental drafts. A senior CIA analyst responsible for the document would work out differences. There is also a process by which an agency can disagree with a comment called a "reclama", which is a footnote expressing an alternate position. For an example of such dissents, see Special National Intelligence Estimate 10-9-65, where there are dissents to various parts from all or part of the military, and from the Department of State.

Upon approval by an interagency review committee, the paper becomes a NIE and is sent by the Director of Central Intelligence to the President, appropriate officers of Cabinet level, and the NSC.

Directorate of Science and Technology

The Directorate of Science & Technology creates and applies innovative technology in support of the intelligence collection mission.
The CIA has always shown a strong interest in how to use advances in technology to enhance its effectiveness. This interest in modern technology came from two main aims: firstly, to harness these techniques its own use, and second to counter any new technologies the Soviet Union might develop. This effort gained impetus in the fifties with the launch of the Sputnik satellite by the USSR. The agency is also extremely interested in computer and information technology.  In 1999, the CIA created the venture capital firm In-Q-Tel to help fund and develop technologies of interest to the agency.

Its website mentions its priorities being in:
Application Software and Analytics
Bio, Nuclear, and Chemical Technologies
Communications and Infrastructure
Digital Identity and Security
Embedded Systems and Power

In January 2008, its featured collaboration was with Streambase Systems, makers of a "high-performance Complex event processing (CEP) software platform for real-time and historical analysis of high-volume intelligence data", using a new processing paradigm for Structured Query Language (SQL), allowing queries against multiple real-time data streams still updating the data base.

Also called, the HRO protocol (human resource overload protocole), there being no man nor woman alive today, nor in the past, capable of analyzing in real time the quantious number of reports generated, unless, it's purely from a single source.

Directorate of Operations

The Directorate of Operations (formerly the National Clandestine Service) is responsible for collecting foreign intelligence, mainly from clandestine HUMINT sources, and covert action. The name reflects its role as the coordinator of human intelligence activities among other elements of the wider U.S. intelligence community with their own HUMINT operations. The Directorate of Operations was created in an attempt to end years of rivalry over influence, philosophy and budget between the United States Department of Defense (DOD) and the CIA. In spite of this, the Department of Defense recently organized its own global clandestine intelligence service, the Defense Clandestine Service (DCS), under the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA).

The precise present organization of this Directorate is classified.

It is responsible for collection of foreign intelligence, principally from clandestine HUMINT sources, and covert action. The new name reflects its role as the coordinator of all human intelligence activities among various elements of the wider U.S. intelligence community. Note that there is an open source function in the office of the Director of National Intelligence, which may be taking over certain legal interviews in the US that previously were the Domestic Contact Division (or Domestic Contact Service).

While the NCS organization chart has not been published, although there have been prior descriptions of the Directorate of Plans or the Directorate of Operations, a fairly recent organization chart of the Defense Clandestine Service will indicate functions transferred into the NCS, and may well be fairly close to the overall NCS organizational structure.

The Special Activities Division (SAD) is a division of the Central Intelligence Agency's National Clandestine Service, responsible for covert action paramilitary operations, the collection of intelligence in hostile and/or denied areas and all high threat military and/or intelligence operations when the US government does not wish to be overtly associated with such activities.  As such, members of the unit, when on missions, normally do not carry any objects or clothing (e.g., military uniforms) that would associate them with the United States. If compromised during a mission, the government of the United States may legally deny their status and all knowledge of their mission.  SAD officers are a majority of the recipients of the coveted Distinguished Intelligence Cross and the Intelligence Star. These are the two highest medals for valor in the CIA. Not surprisingly, SAD officers also make up the majority of those memorialized on the Wall of Honor at CIA headquarters.  These Paramilitary Operations Officers were the spearhead of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

There are references to earlier structures in various historical documents. For example, in a CIA paper on the internal probe into the Bay of Pigs Invasion, there are several comments on the Directorate of Plans organizational structure in 1962. Even though any large organization will constantly reorganize, the basic functions will stay and can be a clue to future organization.

At the top level, Deputy Director for Plans Richard Bissell had two Assistant Deputy Directors, C. Tracy Barnes and Richard Helms.  Warner explains "operational details fell to Branch 4 (Cuba) of the DDP's Western Hemisphere Division (WH)", with some exceptions. Jacob Esterline, chief of the Cuba Branch, reported directly to Bissell and Barnes rather than to his division chief, J.C. King "although King was regularly informed and often consulted. To confuse matters still further, Branch 4 had no direct control over the Brigade's aircraft, which were managed by a separate DDP division that also took some orders directly from Deputy Director of Central Intelligence (DDCI) Charles P. Cabell, a US Air Force general who liked to keep his hand in the planning of airdrops and other missions." Air operations, therefore, were in a separate division either for covert support, paramilitary operations, or both.

Cuba Branch had a "Foreign Intelligence Section," foreign intelligence being a term of art for HUMINT. The branch, however, established a separate 'G-2' unit, subordinate to its Paramilitary Section, which planned the actual invasion. This gives us the model of a geographic branch with subordinate sections, at least, for intelligence collection and paramilitary actions.

Warner's paper also mentions that certain DDP groups were outside the scope of the post-mortem by Executive Director Lyman Kirkpatrick, but their mention tells us that these were representative components of the DDP: "... the Havana station or the Santiago base, the development of foreign intelligence assets and liaison contacts, Division D's technical collection programs, or counter-intelligence work against the Cuban services." CIA "stations" are the parts of the embassy with officers under diplomatic cover, in a typical diplomatic office building. "Bases", however, are large facilities for supporting operations, typically with an airfield, secure warehouses, barracks and training areas. Division D was the joint CIA-NSA collection effort, where CIA would use clandestine operations personnel to emplace NSA SIGINT sensors. The reference to counter-intelligence work appears to refer to a main counterintelligence division, presumably the Counterintelligence Staff under James Jesus Angleton.

Directorate of Analysis

The Directorate of Analysis (formerly the Directorate of Intelligence) is the analytical branch of the CIA, responsible for the production and dissemination of all-source analysis on key foreign issues relating. It has four regional analytic groups, six groups for transnational issues, and two support units.
Prior to the formation of the office of the Director of National Intelligence, the President's Daily Brief was prepared by the CIA Office of Current Intelligence.

Some open source intelligence (OSINT), such as the Foreign Broadcast Information Service, were, at different times, part of the Directorate of Intelligence or the Directorate of Science & Technology. Along with other OSINT functions, the National Open Source Enterprise is now in the ODNI.

Regional groups
 The Office of Middle East and North Africa Analysis (MENA)
 The Office of South Asia Analysis (OSA)
 The Office of Iraq Analysis
 The Office of Russian and European Analysis (OREA)
 The Office of Asian Pacific, Latin American and African Analysis (APLAA)

Transnational groups

The Office of Terrorism Analysis supports the National Counterterrorism Center in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. See CIA transnational anti-terrorism activities.

The Office of Transnational Issues applies unique functional expertise to assesses perceived existing and emerging threats to US national security and provides  senior policymakers, military planners, and law enforcement with analysis, warning, and crisis support.

The CIA Crime and Narcotics Center researches information on international narcotics trafficking and organized crime for policymakers and the law enforcement community. As the CIA has no legal domestic police authority, it sends its analytic information to the FBI and other law enforcement organizations, such as the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.

The Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation, and Arms Control Center provides intelligence support related to national and non-national threats, as well as supporting threat reduction and arms control. It receives the output of national technical means of verification and works with the Defense Threat Reduction Agency.

The Counterintelligence Center Analysis Group identifies, monitors, and analyzes the efforts of foreign intelligence entities, both national and non-national, against US government interests. It works with FBI personnel in the National Counterintelligence Executive of the Director of National Intelligence.

The Information Operations Center Analysis Group. deals with threats to US computer systems. This unit supports DNI activities and evaluates foreign threats to US computer systems, particularly those that support critical infrastructures. It works with critical infrastructure protection organizations in the United States Department of Defense (e.g., CERT Coordination Center) and the Department of Homeland Security (e.g., United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team).

Support and general units
The Office of Collection Strategies and Analysis provides comprehensive intelligence collection expertise to the Directorate of Intelligence, to senior Agency and Intelligence Community officials, and to key national policymakers.

The Office of Policy Support customizes Directorate of Analysis products and presents it to a wide variety of policy, law enforcement, military, and foreign liaison recipients.

Directorate of Support
The Directorate of Support provides necessary "housekeeping" administration functions, but in a manner consistent with the need to keep their details protected. These functions include personnel, security, communications, and financial operations.  Most of this Directorate is sub-structured into smaller offices based on role and purpose, such as the Office of Security, which is concerned both with personnel and physical security. Other major offices include the Office of Communications and the Office of Information Technology.

Logistics and proprietaries
Under the original NSC 10/2 authorization, CIA was made responsible not just for covert action during the cold war, but for such action during major wars, in collaboration with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. When DCI Smith created the Directorate of Plans and ended the autonomy of the OPC and OSO, he recognized it was necessary to establish logistical support for these operations before the start of a hot war. Smith did not want to duplicate existing military support systems, and proposed, in 1952, that the CIA should be able to draw, on a reimbursable basis, on military supply stocks. In many respects, this was the beginning of the idea that what was to become the Directorate of Support had a far wider scope than the OSS and initial CIA term, Directorate of Administration.

Smith presented the concept that the CIA would need a worldwide system of support bases, which usually could be tenant organizations on military bases. According to Smith's memo,

A major logistical support base will consist of a CIA base headquarters, training, communications, medical accommodation for evacuees and storage for six months' hot war requirements as well as provide logistical support for CIA operational groups or headquarters ... Informal planning along the lines indicated has been carried out by elements of CIA with ... the Joint Chiefs of Staff ...

The CIA was expected to reimburse "extraordinary expenses" incurred by the military services.

While military transportation might be appropriate for some purposes, there would be cases where the arrival of a military aircraft at a location other than a military base might draw undue attention. This was the origin of the idea of the CIA operating proprietary airlines, whose relationship to the US government would not be public. Among these organizations were airlines that provided covert logistical support, such as Civil Air Transport, Southern Air Transport, and consolidated them into Air America. The latter was heavily involved in support with the war in Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam in the 1960s.

Training
This directorate includes the Office of Training, which starts with a Junior Officer Training program for new employees. So that the initial course might be taken by employees who had not received final security clearance and thus were not permitted unescorted access to the Headquarters building, a good deal of basic training has been given at office buildings in the urban areas of Arlington, Virginia.

It is known, although not acknowledged by the US Government, that the CIA runs at least two operations training facilities. One is known as The Farm, at Camp Peary, Virginia. The other is known as The Point at Harvey Point, North Carolina. While the course outline has never been revealed, it is believed to include such things as surveillance, countersurveillance, cryptography, paramilitary training as well as other tradecraft. The course is believed to be slightly less than a year and runs at irregular intervals depending on circumstances. Operations training is delivered by experienced operations officers.

Student progress is monitored by experienced evaluators who meet to discuss a recruit's progress and who have the power to dismiss a recruit even before his or her training is complete.  Evaluation techniques for the CIA's World War II predecessor, the OSS, were published as the book Assessment of Men, Selection of Personnel for the office of Strategic Services. (See Roger Hall's You're Stepping on My Cloak and Dagger for an amusing but accurate account of Hall's OSS duty, which included finding unexpected solutions to things in the assessment process as well as his experience in real operations.)

Psychological stress is part of operations training, but of a different type than military special operations force evaluation, such as the Navy SEAL Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL course or Army Special Forces Assessment and Selection. For instance, an operations training officer will often lie to a recruit saying they have evidence that will result in the recruit to be arrested and tried for felony crimes. This is a test of the recruit's ability to maintain a cover under stress.

Contrary to popular belief or what is seen in film and television series, US-born, professional employees trained to work as Intelligence Officers for the National Clandestine Service (CIA) are never referred to as "secret agents", "spies", "agents" or "special agents", they are known as 'Operations Officers' or 'Case Officers', or Officer for short.  To highlight this point: within the intelligence community, the equivalent of an FBI Special Agent is a CIA Officer.  Within the law enforcement community, the equivalent of a CIA "agent" is an FBI informant.  There does not exist any working title or job position known as 'CIA Agent', agents or "assets" of the CIA are usually foreigners who pass along secret information to the government through CIA Case Officers, who are posted at US embassies worldwide.

These CIA Case Officers recruit foreign agents, known as 'assets', to give information to the CIA. There are a wide range of motivations for a person to become an asset; CIA Case Officers are normally sent abroad under a cover identity, most commonly as a diplomat but sometimes under "nonofficial cover" using an assumed identity and having no immunity.

Other offices

General Publications
One of the CIA's best-known publications, The World Factbook, is in the public domain and is made freely available without copyright restrictions because it is a work of the United States federal government.

CIA's Center for the Study of Intelligence maintains the Agency's historical materials and promotes the study of intelligence as a legitimate and serious discipline. The CIA since 1955 has published an in-house professional journal known as Studies in Intelligence that addresses historical, operational, doctrinal, and theoretical aspects of the intelligence profession. The Center also publishes unclassified and declassified Studies articles, as well as other books and monographs. A further annotated collection of Studies articles was published through Yale University Press under the title Inside CIA's Private World: Declassified Articles from the Agency's Internal Journal, 1955-1992.

In 2002, CIA's Sherman Kent School for Intelligence Analysis began publishing the unclassified Kent Center Occasional Papers, aiming to offer "an opportunity for intelligence professionals and interested colleagues—in an unofficial and unfettered vehicle—to debate and advance the theory and practice of intelligence analysis."

General Counsel
Two offices advise the Director on legality and proper operations. The Office of the General Counsel advises the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency on all legal matters relating to his or her role as CIA director and is the principal source of legal counsel for the CIA.

Inspector General

The Office of Inspector General promotes efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability in the administration of Agency activities. The OIG also seeks to prevent and detect fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement. The Inspector General is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The Inspector General, whose activities are independent of those of any other component in the Agency, reports directly to the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. The OIG conducts inspections, investigations, and audits at Headquarters and in the field, and oversees the Agency-wide grievance-handling system. The OIG provides a semiannual report to the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency which the Director is required by law to submit to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees of Congress within 30 days.

In February 2008, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Michael V. Hayden, sent a message to employees that Inspector General John L. Helgerson will accept increased control over the investigations by that office, saying "John has chosen to take a number of steps to heighten the efficiency, assure the quality and increase the transparency of the investigation process". The Washington Post suggested this was a response to senior officials who believe the OIG has been too aggressive in looking into counterterrorism programs, including detention programs. The changes were the result of an investigation, begun in April 2007, by one of Hayden's assistants, Robert L. Deitz. There was congressional concern that restrictions on the OIG might have a chilling effect on its effectiveness. Senator Ron Wyden, a Democratic member of the Intelligence Committee, did not disagree with any of Hayden's conclusions but said the inquiry "should never have happened and can't be allowed to happen again."..."I'm all for the inspector general taking steps that help C.I.A. employees understand his processes, but that can be done without an approach that can threaten the inspector general's independence."

Public Affairs
The Office of Public Affairs advises the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency on all media, public policy, and employee communications issues relating to his role as CIA director and is the CIA's principal communications focal point for the media, the general public and Agency employees. See CIA influence on public opinion.

Talent Acquisition
Talent Acquisition is the office tasked with recruiting. As of July 2018, the Chief of Talent Acquisition is Sheronda Dorsey.

Citations

Central Intelligence Agency
Central Intelligence Agency
Articles needing cleanup from January 2021


Uruguay has competed in five Rugby World Cup tournaments: 1999, 2003, 2015, 2019, and 2023.

A huge success for them was qualifying for the 1999 Rugby World Cup in Wales. They won their pool fixture against Spain, finishing third in their pool.

They qualified for the World Cup again in 2003, and won their pool fixture against Georgia, 24–12.

Uruguay's qualification for the 2007 World Cup started in Americas Round 3a, where they were pooled with Argentina and Chile. After losing their first match 26 points to nil to Argentina, they defeated Chile 43-15 in Montevideo, which saw them enter Round 4, where they faced the USA. Uruguay lost on aggregate, and moved on to the repechage round as Americas 4. They played Portugal over two legs - losing the first in Lisbon and winning the second in Montevideo. Portugal qualified on aggregate points.
They again failed to qualify for the 2011 Rugby World Cup final tournament.

Uruguay qualified for the 2015 Rugby World Cup. They did not win any games during the tournament.

Uruguay qualified for the 2019 Rugby World Cup and won their opening game against Fiji 30-27.

By position

1999 Rugby World Cup (Pool A)

2003 Rugby World Cup (Pool C)

2007 Rugby World Cup
Did not qualify.

2011 Rugby World Cup
Did not qualify.

2015 Rugby World Cup
During 2015 Rugby World Cup qualifying, Uruguay won the 2013 South American Rugby Championship "A", getting wins at the Estadio Charrúa against Brazil (58–7) and Chile (23–9). In March 2014, Uruguay faced the United States in a NACRA-CONSUR playoff for the last Americas qualification spot. Uruguay tied the home leg 27–27, but lost the away leg 32–13. Uruguay then moved to the repechage, where it defeated Hong Kong 28–3 at the Estadio Charrúa, to face Russia for the 20th and final spot at the 2015 Rugby World Cup. Uruguay qualified for the 2015 Rugby World Cup by defeating Russia by an aggregate score of 57–49 in the two-game series, winning the second game at home 36–27 in front of 14,000 fans at the Charrua Stadium.

Uruguay played in Pool A. The pool was composed of hosts England, as well as the third- and fourth-placed teams from 2011, Australia and Wales. They were joined by one qualifier, Fiji. The group has been called the "group of death". Uruguay lost all their pool matches without any bonus points.

2019 Rugby World Cup
Uruguay qualified by beating Canada over two legs. Uruguay play in Pool D. They are joined by Australia, Wales, Georgia and Fiji. Uruguay won their first match of the pool, which was 30–27 against Fiji.

2023 Rugby World Cup

Overall record

Team records

Most points in a tournament
65 (2023 in )
60 (2019 in )
56 (2003 in )

Most points in a game
36 vs  (2023)
30 vs  (2019)
27 vs  (1999)

Biggest winning margin
12 vs  (1999)
12 Vs  (2003)
10 vs  (2023)

Highest score against
111 vs  (2003)
73 vs  (2023)
72 vs  (2003)

Biggest losing margin
98 vs  (2003)
73 vs  (2023)
66 vs  (2003)

Most tries in a tournament
9 (2023 in )
6 (2019 in )
6 (2003 in )

Most tries in a game
5 vs  (2023)
3 vs  (1999)
3 vs  (2003)
3 vs  (2019)

Individual records
Most appearances
12 Agustín Ormaechea ( 2015,  2019,  2023)
12 Andrés Vilaseca ( 2015,  2019,  2023)
11 Felipe Berchesi ( 2015,  2019,  2023)
11 Mateo Sanguinetti ( 2015,  2019,  2023)
10 German Kessler ( 2015,  2019,  2023)

Most appearances as Captain
5 Andrés Vilaseca ( 2019,  2023)
4 Diego Aguirre ( 2003)
4 Santiago Vilaseca ( 2015)

Most points overall
55 Felipe Berchesi ( 2015, 2019,  2023)
30 Diego Aguirre ( 1999,  2003)
18 Juan Menchaca ( 1999,  2003)
15 Baltazar Amaya ( 2023)
13 Felipe Etcheverry ( 2019,  2023)

Most points in a game
15 vs  - Felipe Berchesi ( 2019)
10 vs  - Baltazar Amaya ( 2023)
9 vs  - Diego Aguirre ( 1999)
9 vs  - Felipe Berchesi ( 2015)
8 vs  - Juan Menchaca ( 2003)
8 vs  - Felipe Berchesi ( 2019)

Most tries overall
3 Baltazar Amaya ( 2023)
2 Pablo Lemoine ( 1999,  2003)
2 Alfonso Cardoso ( 1999,  2003)
2 Santiago Arata ( 2019,  2023)
2 Manuel Diana ( 2019,  2023)
2 Nicolas Freitas ( 2019,  2023)
2 German Kessler ( 2019,  2023)

Most penalty goals
12 Felipe Berchesi ( 2015, 2019,  2023)
8 Diego Aguirre ( 1999,  2003)
3 Juan Menchaca ( 1999,  2003)

References

Rugby World Cup by nation
World Cup


OX is the fourth and final studio album by American metalcore band Coalesce, released on June 9, 2009 through Relapse Records. It is the band's only studio album released since 1999's 0:12 Revolution in Just Listening. OX became Coalesce's first charting release, peaking at number 28 on the US Top Heatseekers chart.

Track listing
All songs written by Coalesce.

Personnel
 Sean Ingram – vocals
 Jes Steineger – guitar
 Nathan Ellis – bass
 Nathan "Jr." Richardson – drums
 Produced, Engineered & Mixed by Ed Rose
 Mastered by Mike Fossenkemper

References

Coalesce (band) albums
2009 albums
Relapse Records albums
Albums produced by Ed Rose