The proverbial Sword of Damocles is hanging over Syria.
It was business as usual all over the Arab World when a certain Muhammad Bouazizi set himself on fire back in December 2010 to unwittingly release a hurricane that in no time claimed the presidents of Tunis and Egypt and inaugurated a series of demonstrations in Bahrain, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and elsewhere. Bouazizi was the Arab World’s Gavrilo Princip who did no more than lighting the fuse to initiate a chain reaction that would perhaps have happened sooner or later to release the immense energy of a deceptively silent volcano.
The Arab Spring is not the subject of my essay, for it is still unfolding. In fact the very expression “Arab Spring” should be accepted with caution, if at all. The players and playfields are quite different across the Arab World and what may apply to Egypt would not necessarily apply to Syria. This essay is about Syria and only Syria but I wish it was that simple.
To begin with, what is Syria? Well from an etymological standpoint, “Syria” was the name the Greeks (and subsequently the Romans) loosely applied to the area bound to the North by Asia Minor, to the South by the Arabia Desert, to the West by the Mediterranean Sea. It was a geographical, not a geopolitical designation and its boundaries changed a great deal throughout the long history of the Near East. The same area would be called “Bilad il Sham” by the Arabs (that is the country located to the North of Hijaz as opposed to “Yemen” that referred to the South) and the Levant (from soleil levant or east as opposed to the west or soleil couchant) by the French.
As every school kid in Syria knows (but not many Syrians admit), modern Syria was a creation of France in the aftermath of WWI. The Near East was carved by Mister Mark Sykes and Monsieur Georges Picot on behalf of the British and the French empires to mandates and spheres of influence with France accorded the mandate for Syria including Lebanon (yes, a hundred years ago the Lebanese called themselves Syrians but that’s another story) and Britain those for Iraq, Transjordan, and Palestine.
According to Syria’s official history, the French proceeded with a deliberate policy of “divide and conquer” right from the start. “Divide” the French indeed did. Syria was partitioned into 6 different entities: the States of Aleppo, Damascus, Jabal Druze, Jibal il Alawiin, Greater Lebanon, and Alexandretta. Alexandretta was later ceded to Turkey and Lebanon (enlarged by 4 “Syrian” districts) was kept separate even after administrative and financial considerations convinced the French of the desirability of unifying the remaining 4 “states” into one “Syria”.
In their political and administrative divisions, the French emphasized the religious differences in Syria. I say "emphasized" for certainly they did not create those differences. The Maronite Christians were given Lebanon (enlarged by the aforementioned “Syrian” districts to make it economically viable), The Alawites were made “independent” and so were the Druze, whereas the rival cities of Aleppo and Damascus were each granted its own realm. The partition, to be sure, had many flaws as was bound to happen in an ethnically, linguistically, and religiously diverse country the way Syria was and still is. For example there was an important Kurdish concentration in al Jazeera whereas Syria’s Christians were too scattered across the emerging country to be granted their own dominion. The French probably debated those issues and more but could not come-up with a palatable remedy. They realized and so did their embittered Syrian subjects that the division was artificial but reckoned that it would be well nigh impossible to come up with a solution that satisfies everyone and did not suspect at the time that they would soon be evicted from the Levant and lose control over the subsequent development of their creatures.
Syria achieved its long coveted independence in the 1940’s. Alexandretta and Lebanon were lost, it is true, but the rest of the country somehow remained in one piece and was now a full fledged state, a member of the United Nations, and governed by its own people. Its borders, with the exception of the Golan Height that was lost to Israel in 1967, have seemingly stabilized and acquired permanence through the recognition of its neighbors as well as the international community. Those borders, however, have ever been denounced by Syrian patriots of different political orientations as artificially imposed by foreigners. For better or for worse, Syrians kept looking beyond their borders in search of a Greater Syria, a Fertile Crescent, an Arab Nation, etc. Generations of Syrians were maintained on an ambitious but imaginary diet of a Syria that never was.
Fast forward to March 2011 when the fever of the so called “Arab Spring” reached Syria. Once more it is not my intention to elaborate on Syria’s simmering civil war as the final chapter in that sad narrative is yet to be written and I fear we’re in for a long ride. What I would like to point out (which is the central theme of this essay) is the increasingly ethnic-sectarian nature of the current strife. Whereas our parents and grandparents incessantly raised the banner of Arab or Syrian union, a sizable part (some think a majority) of the current generation appears hopelessly divided along sectarian lines and utterly bent on settling scores and pursuing vendettas. Some have even gone to the extent of asking help from the same “colonial” powers that our grandparents denouced and “evicted”.
But is any of this surprising? Well it shouldn’t. One only needs to look next door at the Lebanese and (most recently) Iraqi models. Of course in both models outside intervention played a crucial (in Iraq’s case a decisive) role but there is no denying that the soil was fertile with sectarian hatred that was bound to explode with outright war comes a timely stimulus. More to the point, if tiny Lebanon can plunge into a bloody civil war for almost a generation why wouldn’t Syria, several times Lebanon’s size area as well as population-wise and just as complex from ethnic and religious standpoints?
Are Syria’s borders artificial? Absolutely! But this can be interpreted in two diametrically opposite manners and an inescapable conclusion would be that the French may have created a Syria that is too large for its own good after all. Why not re-partition Syria, give the Kurds the Northeast, the Druze the Southwest, the Alawis the coast, well you got the idea… It may not sound pretty but it definitely is better than endless fighting and bloodshed and it sure hell beats any “humanitarian” military intervention by the cynical western powers and a NATO that all but outlived its usefullness. If, and that’s a big if, it could be done peacefully..
I don’t know what the solution is. I don’t know if a reasonably accepted solution even exists. Anyone who practiced Medicine long enough knows that not all diseases are curable the “miracles” of modern science and technology notwithstanding. Can Syria be kept in one piece with no recourse to using overwhelming force? Would a day dawn on this tormented land when Syrians love their country, however artificially created, more than they distrust and resent each other?
Syrians are notorious for talking the talk: there has never been a shortage of sycophants singing Syria’s praises and professing an everlasting love for their fatherland but what is needed more urgently than ever would be responsible leaders and enlightened citizenry for walking the walk. Syria needs less poetry and more action. Goneril and Regan proffered undying, boundless, and indescribable love for their senile old father but when push came to shove king Lear could only rely on the quiet love of his sweet Cordelia.
It was business as usual all over the Arab World when a certain Muhammad Bouazizi set himself on fire back in December 2010 to unwittingly release a hurricane that in no time claimed the presidents of Tunis and Egypt and inaugurated a series of demonstrations in Bahrain, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and elsewhere. Bouazizi was the Arab World’s Gavrilo Princip who did no more than lighting the fuse to initiate a chain reaction that would perhaps have happened sooner or later to release the immense energy of a deceptively silent volcano.
The Arab Spring is not the subject of my essay, for it is still unfolding. In fact the very expression “Arab Spring” should be accepted with caution, if at all. The players and playfields are quite different across the Arab World and what may apply to Egypt would not necessarily apply to Syria. This essay is about Syria and only Syria but I wish it was that simple.
To begin with, what is Syria? Well from an etymological standpoint, “Syria” was the name the Greeks (and subsequently the Romans) loosely applied to the area bound to the North by Asia Minor, to the South by the Arabia Desert, to the West by the Mediterranean Sea. It was a geographical, not a geopolitical designation and its boundaries changed a great deal throughout the long history of the Near East. The same area would be called “Bilad il Sham” by the Arabs (that is the country located to the North of Hijaz as opposed to “Yemen” that referred to the South) and the Levant (from soleil levant or east as opposed to the west or soleil couchant) by the French.
As every school kid in Syria knows (but not many Syrians admit), modern Syria was a creation of France in the aftermath of WWI. The Near East was carved by Mister Mark Sykes and Monsieur Georges Picot on behalf of the British and the French empires to mandates and spheres of influence with France accorded the mandate for Syria including Lebanon (yes, a hundred years ago the Lebanese called themselves Syrians but that’s another story) and Britain those for Iraq, Transjordan, and Palestine.
According to Syria’s official history, the French proceeded with a deliberate policy of “divide and conquer” right from the start. “Divide” the French indeed did. Syria was partitioned into 6 different entities: the States of Aleppo, Damascus, Jabal Druze, Jibal il Alawiin, Greater Lebanon, and Alexandretta. Alexandretta was later ceded to Turkey and Lebanon (enlarged by 4 “Syrian” districts) was kept separate even after administrative and financial considerations convinced the French of the desirability of unifying the remaining 4 “states” into one “Syria”.
In their political and administrative divisions, the French emphasized the religious differences in Syria. I say "emphasized" for certainly they did not create those differences. The Maronite Christians were given Lebanon (enlarged by the aforementioned “Syrian” districts to make it economically viable), The Alawites were made “independent” and so were the Druze, whereas the rival cities of Aleppo and Damascus were each granted its own realm. The partition, to be sure, had many flaws as was bound to happen in an ethnically, linguistically, and religiously diverse country the way Syria was and still is. For example there was an important Kurdish concentration in al Jazeera whereas Syria’s Christians were too scattered across the emerging country to be granted their own dominion. The French probably debated those issues and more but could not come-up with a palatable remedy. They realized and so did their embittered Syrian subjects that the division was artificial but reckoned that it would be well nigh impossible to come up with a solution that satisfies everyone and did not suspect at the time that they would soon be evicted from the Levant and lose control over the subsequent development of their creatures.
Syria achieved its long coveted independence in the 1940’s. Alexandretta and Lebanon were lost, it is true, but the rest of the country somehow remained in one piece and was now a full fledged state, a member of the United Nations, and governed by its own people. Its borders, with the exception of the Golan Height that was lost to Israel in 1967, have seemingly stabilized and acquired permanence through the recognition of its neighbors as well as the international community. Those borders, however, have ever been denounced by Syrian patriots of different political orientations as artificially imposed by foreigners. For better or for worse, Syrians kept looking beyond their borders in search of a Greater Syria, a Fertile Crescent, an Arab Nation, etc. Generations of Syrians were maintained on an ambitious but imaginary diet of a Syria that never was.
Fast forward to March 2011 when the fever of the so called “Arab Spring” reached Syria. Once more it is not my intention to elaborate on Syria’s simmering civil war as the final chapter in that sad narrative is yet to be written and I fear we’re in for a long ride. What I would like to point out (which is the central theme of this essay) is the increasingly ethnic-sectarian nature of the current strife. Whereas our parents and grandparents incessantly raised the banner of Arab or Syrian union, a sizable part (some think a majority) of the current generation appears hopelessly divided along sectarian lines and utterly bent on settling scores and pursuing vendettas. Some have even gone to the extent of asking help from the same “colonial” powers that our grandparents denouced and “evicted”.
But is any of this surprising? Well it shouldn’t. One only needs to look next door at the Lebanese and (most recently) Iraqi models. Of course in both models outside intervention played a crucial (in Iraq’s case a decisive) role but there is no denying that the soil was fertile with sectarian hatred that was bound to explode with outright war comes a timely stimulus. More to the point, if tiny Lebanon can plunge into a bloody civil war for almost a generation why wouldn’t Syria, several times Lebanon’s size area as well as population-wise and just as complex from ethnic and religious standpoints?
Are Syria’s borders artificial? Absolutely! But this can be interpreted in two diametrically opposite manners and an inescapable conclusion would be that the French may have created a Syria that is too large for its own good after all. Why not re-partition Syria, give the Kurds the Northeast, the Druze the Southwest, the Alawis the coast, well you got the idea… It may not sound pretty but it definitely is better than endless fighting and bloodshed and it sure hell beats any “humanitarian” military intervention by the cynical western powers and a NATO that all but outlived its usefullness. If, and that’s a big if, it could be done peacefully..
I don’t know what the solution is. I don’t know if a reasonably accepted solution even exists. Anyone who practiced Medicine long enough knows that not all diseases are curable the “miracles” of modern science and technology notwithstanding. Can Syria be kept in one piece with no recourse to using overwhelming force? Would a day dawn on this tormented land when Syrians love their country, however artificially created, more than they distrust and resent each other?
Syrians are notorious for talking the talk: there has never been a shortage of sycophants singing Syria’s praises and professing an everlasting love for their fatherland but what is needed more urgently than ever would be responsible leaders and enlightened citizenry for walking the walk. Syria needs less poetry and more action. Goneril and Regan proffered undying, boundless, and indescribable love for their senile old father but when push came to shove king Lear could only rely on the quiet love of his sweet Cordelia.
