Sunday, August 15, 2010

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 of 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 on (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 to better fulfill its destiny and historical role. Nasser’s prestige hit the stratosphere by the late 1950s only to reach a nadir in 1967. The rest of his presidency and the entire duration of Sadat’s administration were therefore dedicated to recovering the lost ground and ultimately putting the Nasser Phenomenon in its proper perspective.

Sadat was a reaction to Nasser. He was trying to redefine Egypt’s mission in less grandiose terms. He reoriented 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 it. 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 nevertheless was very rich, with ample achievements to boast. Damascus claims to be the oldest continuously inhabited city on Earth (so does its rival Aleppo). Syria’s alphabet was among the oldest, if not the oldest. Phoenician vessels pioneered maritime trade, carrying it throughout the Mediterranean, penetrating Gibraltar, and rounding 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.”

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 Umayyads. 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 to foster agriculture and settlement but not at a large enough scale to create sizable maritime trade, permanent central administration, and a strong bureaucracy; let alone a standing unified army 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. They 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 my stepfather.” Syrians were Arameans, Phoenicians, Canaanites, Hebrews, and Amorites; they were Aleppines, Damascens, Tyrenes, and Palmyrenes; and they were Muslims, Christians, and 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 a few intellectuals in what nowadays is called Lebanon. Within a few decades it matured into a call for autonomy and then independence (from the Ottoman Empire) under Hashemite leadership with British money, arms, and guidance.

Sherif 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 later on, was to be a reward for his contribution to the Allied cause. He was ambitious and opportunistic, but a philosopher he was not. That role was left to Syrian intellectuals who formulated their ideologies by 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 Aflaq 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” were concepts that had nothing to do with “Syria” proper, most notably that of the “Muslim Nation” of the Brotherhood and Communism; the latter attracted quite a few followers with leftist orientations.

The common factor between all those ideologies—Syrian, Arab, Islamist, and Communist (here comes to mind Nasser’s three circles, except that his were, of course, not exclusive)—is that they all envisioned 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 Sir 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 exclusively Arab or Islamist) than by what it is. I pretend not to have found the answer. History is my passion, but I lay no claim to predicting the future.

6 comments:

  1. Many nation-states began with a vision to unite seemingly “un-unitable” people in one entity, same thing applies all the time with religions, they all start with a vision, almost always imaginary.
    What sets the difference between “real” nati...on-states and “imaginary” ones is mainly one thing, pure chance and luck.
    The very same thing differentiates between religions and cults. Success and only success. To me at least, that success depends on luck more than anything else.
    I can imagine very different nations-sates had Hitler won his war, had the south states been more economically advanced than the union, had Stalin not been born, the list goes on and on. (Note that I am following your lead in not using controversy-stirring examples).
    There are no natural boundaries that separate Germany from its neighbors, same thing applies for Poland, Belarus, Ukraine and a multitude of other present-day established nations. The history of Germany is not that old, there were almost nothing there when Syria was a rife with civilization.
    Syrian and Arab nationalism could have worked in some form or shape, not necessarily to the full extent of their “natural” borders, a new nation could have been born out of “thin air”, but it just didn’t happen for many reasons: ethnic, tribal and religious allegiances, and yes, even external factors like “Colonialism” and “Imperialism”, however funny using these almost extinct terms sounds today.
    That said, the bottom line is: we have real entity right now to build an identity upon, this entity is called “Syrian Republic”, I deliberately left the ideological “Arab” part from the name, hoping that it would be really removed sooner rather than later (and not replaced by the “Islamic”).
    That entity is very fragile and most of its inhabitants have an acute identity problem, but it is the only thing we have, the only real foundation, this entity so far lived longer that the entire life of the Omayyad empire. Sykes-Picot or not, it is a country now and it can become a nation with time with good planning for identity creation. The alternative will not be “The Greater Syrian Nation”, “The Arab Nation” or “The Islamic Nation”, most likely, and after an extended and bloody civil war, it will be:
    1- The Sunni Syrian nation in the inner part or Syria
    2 – The Alawi Nation on the Mediterranean coast
    3 – Kurdistan Syria Nation in the east
    4 – And maybe the Druze nation in the south.
    With other minorities marginalized, eradicated, ethnically cleansed, or exterminated.
    I sure hope we Syrians find our identity, and soon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I felt as a Syrian citizen the same identity crisis, being perplexed by the forced Arabic doctrine let alone the socialism imposed on us since early youth. I dreaded the Islamist alternative more than the de facto state, Syrian nationalism was always appealing but one thing always did not let me settle for Antun ideology which was the apathy and disconnection from the neighbors which felt to have deep connection and rooting to the region

      My solace was in adopting east Mediterranean region as part of a shattered family but deeply woven into by blood culture music and history

      Delete
  2. ….another comment is the sense of belong to the east Mediterranean as a loose entity of groups of people with established heterogenosity amongst each other yet some unifying features compared to other regions in the world…be it in personality characters, cuisine, music, dance…yet I still feel as a Syrian citizen of this corner of the Mediterranean ..
    This is much more appealing to me than say developing intense dysphoria to your surrounding as in some Lebanese nationalists or in another instance having sense of unfounded superiority to your once upon a time conquered neighbors as many Turkish nationalists show

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your interest and may our beloved Syria find peace.

      Delete
  3. We have often seen in history books that Syria was a great country during the time of the Phoenicians and Palmyrenes. They had extensive trade across the oceans. I watched on National Geographic about messages between the Phoenicians and South America from the Mayan and Inca civilizations. Also, the Pharaohs found messages in a library between them and the Syrians. All this means that Syria had an ancient position in the world at that time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 💖Various peoples and states in what we now call Syria did all that and more. I nevertheless doubt that they counsidered themselves Syrians in the modern sense. Syria as a geopolitical entity was born in the twentieth century. Same applies to virtually all countries in the Near East with the notable exception of Egypt.

      Delete