Eurocentric Mandate: The Syrian Congress

Mandates had only applied in the Middle East and were the cause to several conflicts. The mandates allowed imposition of the French and British

Maximilien Robespierre was and Bashar Al-Assad is a totalitarian ruler of their respective countries, France and Syria, given that they have established strict regimes in order to maintain control over their nations. In times of chaos, rulers such as these are meant to take action by defending or fighting for their nation. In Robespierre’s perspective, defending one’s nation is only sensible if the ends justify the means. This policy was exhibited in the late 1700’s during the Reign of Terror where Robespierre killed thousands of people with the mindset that it was the most suitable way to protect France from enemies and foreign invaders. In Assad’s perspective, he believes it is more important to kill rebels in Syria rather than to ensure

During the mid 1900’s Britain and France had to give up mandates which allowed Middle Eastern countries to gain their independance.

The French’s mandate over Syria after World Ware One had an irrevocable impact on the nations’s communal factions. The mandate lasted from 1920-1946 and they begun their rule with intentionally made sectarian divisions. They were made in order to prevent Arab nationalism and stifle national independence movements. The divisions were made my religious and national minority. Granting the minorities independent status locations where they make up the majority. For example, there was a large population of Alawites in the mountain range behind Latakia, the French declared them a separate state. The Druze were granted the right and ability to govern themselves in the city of Jabal, just south of Damascus. The one religious group that did

The Arabs took this opportunity to start an uprising. The fighting continued for twenty years until France, in 1936, agreed to let go of their political influence, but they would keep a military presence there and could benefit economically, which meant they controlled the oil. Four years later France fell to the Axis powers and consequently so did Syria. Since the, now Free French, troops needed support along with the British, they agreed to leave the region completely if they helped them win World War 2. After the Germans were defeated, the French, reluctantly, kept their word and left the region. This, however, did not subside the fighting; what was once a battle for freedom turned into an ideological battle between Shias and Sunnis. Eventually some stability was gained and a proper government was set up. In 1971 Hafez Al-Assad was elected president and the country went from being a democracy to a monarchy. He groomed his first son to take over the country once he died but his son passed away in a car accident before he did. Hafez’s second son, Bashar Al-Assad, took control of the country in 2000 and he has remained in power ever since. Prior to the Arab Spring, there were outbursts, but none significantly affected his regime. Once the Arab Spring began, however, the people of Syria, mainly Sunnis, revolted against Assad. At the same time, The United States pulled troops out of Iraq leaving them without any structure or

Democracy, so essential a feature of European countries today, had had to make a bumpy and potholed journey. Basically in all European countries, democracy was nebulous and uncertain in the 19th century, albeit in varying degrees. In Britain, a parliamentary democracy was very much in full bloom, but the inherent love and pride of the British people for their monarchy pre-empted a switch to a full-fledged democratic form of government. As a result, these democratic institutions functioned under a monarchy that controlled the largest empire of the day. In France, the scene was different. In the absence of democratic institutions of the kind Britain had nurtured, the governance the French

Without the assistance of France or any other European power, Syria proved it was ready for independence. However, France ignored the objective of the mandate system and hounded Feisal and his government. France’s Prime Minister at the time, Alexandre Millerand refused to negotiate with Feisal, the man a majority of Syrians wanted as their ruler, and did anything he could to oust him from power5. The mandate system put the colony in the charge of a European nation with the intention that it would be helped along to independence, but France did the opposite of this, despite her leaders’ insistence that France’s mission “was not imperialistic.”6

Considering this, the question of the Mandates true intention comes to mind. Were they intended to benefit the European nations in terms of economic growth and strategic land holdings as the colonial policies of previous decades had? Was the program rooted in a true belief surrounding the adage of ‘the white man’s burden’? Were they a way to usurp control of the territories their enemies of WWI once held in order weaken them an insurance policy to not be attacked again? Or were they merely the result of 19th century-minded ethnocentric Europeans, who, without considering the diversity of the region, or the breadth to which their ancient cultures were imbedded in the native populations, divided the lands along lines they saw most reasonable?

The modern conception of the Middle East was molded in the early 20th century. The French and the British both formulated their foreign policy in the Middle East to help advance their own self interests. Power hungry and desperate for new land, British and French governments struggled to shape the Middle East. Britain’s unwillingness to learn about the people living in the Middle East, coupled with their underestimation of Arab nationalism, made for an inauspicious state. People in these Middle Eastern nations were unable to advocate for themselves and were taken advantage of by corrupt government officials or imperializing western powers. The French and British erred by disregarding pertinent information about the nationalist feelings of the

In the book, A Line In The Sand, James Barr discusses the French struggle over the Middle East between 1914-1948. Throughout this book, it talks about two men, one visionary British politician and the other a veteran French diplomat; Mark Sykes and Francois Georges-Picot. They both secretly drew a line from the Mediterranean to the Persian Frontier. Britain and France would divide and rule 5 countries which are Palestine, Iraq, Transjordan, Lebanon ad Syria. It made the two powers uneasy neighbors for the next 30 years. In this essay I will be talking about how the Franco-British rivalry over the Middle East shaped the development of the region in James Barr’s view. I will talk about the WW1 agreements and

To gain favorable support from the already war tired public, the United States presented the situation in Syria as that of a dictatorship denying basic civil rights to its people, democracy. The United States was trying to support the survival of democracy and to support the oppressed. This explanation provided to the general public to gain favorable support mirrors that of the Vietnam War, where the reason provided was to provide support to South Vietnam to prevent the spread of communism and maintain basic rights of democracy. The United States eventually committed to providing basic support of supplies and armament with very vague objectives in its commitment and limitations of said support.

Syrian activists’ main goal from these talks was always about the formation of a transitional government enjoying full executive powers, without Assad in the picture; while, naming the members of this transitional governing body and the immediate start of performing its functions; followed by a ceasefire throughout the nation. These goals were, more or less, achieved through the passing of the France-US document; that included the point of cessation of hostilities among the warring parties and the immediate lifting of all sieges on towns held by parties to the ceasefire: an important step toward decreasing and deescalating the war momentum on the ground and a gateway for rebuilding Syria and the return of the refugees. From the humanitarian side, every day, people are dying because of the lack of goods and services that are essential for their survival and one of the main reasons was the failure of aid efforts to relieve the accompanying humanitarian crisis. The UNHCR was, more or less, successful in voicing the concerns of the refugees and the internally displaced during these meetings, especially when it came to the implementation of humanitarian corridors: allowing NGOs to be able to reach the conflict zones where scandalous massacres are taking place. Syrian activists considered this point in the resolution to be of major importance, not only in terms of providing humanitarian help in areas of conflict but also, about the fact that it will be monitored by a committee

World War I was a time of revolution for the Syrians. They took this time to finally fight against the Turkish rulers. On May 6th 1916, Syrian leaders were executed on the spot due to disagreement of the Ottoman authority. Today, this event is celebrated in Syria and Lebanon as Martyrs’ Day. In the early 1900s, British troops were sent into Damascus, Syria to ally with the Syrian army to defeat four hundred years of Ottoman rulers. As an independent country, they were under the power of King Faisal I. Britain and France were on different terms within the idea of the Middle East. The two countries split up the Middle Eastern countries. As a result, Syria was placed under French mandate. A mandate is the allowance of larger, more developed countries to control smaller, less advanced countries until they are able to support themselves. This mandate was officially in place by the supervision of The League of

Following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire during World War One, Britain and France divided up the former Ottoman territories under the Sykes-Picot Agreement in 1916, which established French and British colonies, as well as asserted their respective spheres of influence in the region. The borders drawn under this agreement, however, have caused crippling effects still felt today; the Syrian territory was comprised of a Sunni majority, and Alawite (a Shi’a sect), Druze and Kurdish minorities. The present day Syrian Arab Republic emerged from this agreement, and formally gained independence in 1945.

The Arab Spring has been a life changing phenomena, not only for the people who are attempting to overthrow their governments but for political scientists everywhere. The events originating in the North African country of Tunisia have led to the snowballing of several other Middle Eastern, predominantly Muslim, nation states. The figurative breaking point might have finally been reached as the oppressed peoples of the Middle East have risen up to overthrow long-standing dictatorial governments in hopes of revolutionary change; change that is subject to the will of the people.