Syria's Quest

This essay might as well be entitled a “Tale of Two Countries”, the two countries in question being Egypt and Syria. Let me clarify.

      Egypt’s former president, Anwar Sadat, published his autobiography in 1978 under the title “In Search for an Identity”. Perhaps he intended his book as an answer for that of his predecessor “The Philosophy of the Revolution” published in 1955. Most likely Nasser was searching for his own identity back then, 23 years before Sadat embarked (or accomplished) his mission. By “his identity” I mean that of Egypt, of course. To Nasser, Egypt was to be the center of 3 circles, an Arab, an African, and an Islamist. That, plus his “Non-Alignment” policy, was the mission he intended for Egypt as to better fulfill its historical role. Nasser’s prestige hit the stratosphere by the late 1950’s only to reach a nadir in 1967. The rest of his presidency and the entire duration of Sadat’s administration were therefore consecrated to recover the lost ground and ultimately put the Nasser Phenomenon in its proper perspective.

      Sadat was a reaction to Nasser. He was trying to re-define Egypt’s mission in less grandiose terms. He re-oriented his foreign policy towards the West in general and the USA in particular while regionally he put more emphasis on Egypt proper and less on its Arab identity. For better or for worse, Sadat managed during his 11 years in power to undo much of Nasser’s legacy. By 1981, the year of his assassination, the Nasser Era was all but a memory.

      A deeper probe, however, makes one wonder if Nasser and Sadat really needed to worry much about Egypt’s Identity. A unique set of strategic, mostly geographical factors, combined from time immemorial to forge this particular identity. Situated at the junction of two continents favored by a moderate climate, shielded by deserts and the Mediterranean Sea, and endowed by the Nile’s yearly renewable bounty, Upper & Lower Egypt were united by the semi-legendary Menes 5,000 years ago and have remained politically and economically an integrated unit ever since. That the Old Kingdom alone lasted 900 years would suffice to seal the argument. Periodical declines, invasions, and chaos notwithstanding, Egypt’s unique identity has always re-emerged from the ashes as befits her enigmatic Sphinx.

      Which leads me to the tale of the Second Country, Syria, and its own long and belabored Search for an Identity.

      The term “Syria”, was created by the ancient Greeks (so was “Egypt”) to designate a certain geographical area. The extent of that area varied greatly with time according to which reference you consult and which ideology you believe in. An alternative name would be “Bilad Al Sham”, Sham meaning “North” (as opposed to Yemen, indicating “South”, both relative to Arabia & Hejaz).

      Syria’s history is almost as old as that of Egypt. While its civilization was perhaps less imposing in terms of monuments and architecture, it was nevertheless very rich with ample achievements to boast. Damascus claims being the oldest continuously inhabited city on Earth (so does its rival Aleppo), Syria’s alphabet was amongst the oldest, if not the oldest, Phoenician vessels pioneered maritime trade carrying it throughout the Mediterranean penetrating Gibraltar to round the West African Coast. A brilliant and very old civilization by any reckoning and one that, at least at first sight, would more than justify modern romantic dreams of “Greater Syria” or “Syrian Nation”.

      But that was not to be. Throughout history, more often than not, Syria served as a corridor for invaders. They came from all directions: from the East came The Assyrians, Babylonians, and Persians; from the North came the Hittites, the Byzantines, and the Ottomans; From the South came the Arabs: from the Southwest came the Egyptians; and from the West came the Crusaders as harbingers to modern Europeans. To be sure, there were periods when the Center of Gravity “gravitated” to Syria itself, most convincingly so in the time of the great Omayyad’s. Those instances, however, were the exception not the rule. Almost exactly the mirror image of the Egyptian Case.

      This probably has to do with its geography and climate. Syria’s location made it vulnerable to invasions with few natural barriers to oppose covetous neighbors. Its water supply, except at the coast and some small river valleys, was reliable enough as to foster agriculture and settlement but not at a large enough scale as to create permanent central administration and a strong bureaucracy, let alone a standing unified army as to keep the invaders at bay. There were too many mountains cutting off the Coast from the Interior making for different cultures and serving as a refuge for centrifugal and dissident minorities.

      What is clear, moreover, is that “Syrians” throughout history and until very recently, have not thought of themselves as a distinct entity. The proffered their loyalty to whoever happened to be the suzerain of the day and rebelled whenever an opportunity arose or a new master loomed. To put it bluntly, their attitude was something like “whosoever marries my mother shall be by step-father”. Syrians were Aramaic, Phoenician, Canaanites, Hebrew, Amorites; They were Aleppine, Damascene, Tyrene, Palmyrene; They were Muslims, Christians, Jews. They were anything but Syrians.

      At some point in the late part of the 19th Century CE, a different concept was born. Geographical Syria was in the process of metamorphosis to Political Syria. It started as a movement of Arabic-Syrian cultural revival by few intellectuals in what nowadays is called Lebanon. Within few decades it matured into a call for autonomy then independence (from the Ottoman Empire) under Hashemite leadership with British money, arms, and guidance.

      Sheriff Hussein of Mecca spearheaded the call for Syria’s Independence though what he most probably had in mind was a kingdom for himself and his descendants. His Greater Syria, like that of his Son Abdullah, or the “Fertile Crescent” project of Prince Abdul Ilah of Iraq, was to be a reward for his contribution to the Allied cause. He was ambitious and opportunist but a philosopher he was not. That role was left to Syrian Intellectuals who formulated their ideologies copying Western prototypes. Antun Saadah championed the cause of Greater Syria (including parts of modern day Turkey, the Island of Cyprus, the Sinai Desert, etc); Michel Aflak raised the banner of Arab Nationalism from the Persian Gulf to the Atlantic Ocean (presumably under Syrian leadership). There were other Ideologies Competing on the “Market of Nationhood” hat had nothing to do with “Syria” proper, most notably that of the “Muslim Nation” of the Brotherhood, or Communism that attracted quite few followers with leftist orientation.

      The common factor between all those ideologies, Syrian, Arab, Islamist, Communist (here comes to mind Nasser’s three circles except that his were of course not exclusive) is that they all envisaged an entity much different and significantly larger than the one that constitutes modern Syria, itself (let’s face it) a French creation with an important British collaboration.

      It is to be concluded that Syrians have thus far not accepted their lot and therefore have not found their identity. They continue to resent the artificial borders imposed by Mister Sykes and Monsieur Picot but have not as of yet agreed on an alternative let alone the means to reach that alternative. Syria’s Identity remains in flux, perhaps awaiting a Syrian Nasser or a Syrian Sadat to further define it, though a more pertinent question would be if such a visionary would inspire the masses or win converts. It is easier to define Syria by what it is not (it is not eclusively Arab or Islamist) than what it is. I pretend not to have found the answer. History is my passion but I lay no claim to predicting the future.