*The following is a research paper I wrote for a class in high school. While it certainly had a minimum length, it also had a maximum standard and thus in some areas, it is lacking. By no means is it to be taken as a full and in depth and analysis of the topic, but it should serve as an adequate summary. I hope the reader may find it useful.

Introduction

Riddled with economic and political instability today, the transcontinental region that is the Middle East is an area that is in dire need for historical examination by all in order to fully comprehend why this is currently so. Perhaps these mishaps can be traced back to the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. After after World War One, the imperial powers of Britain and France shaped the map of the region as we know it today and with their hands in the region for years to come, laid the foundations for perhaps one of the most strange and unforeseen chain of events to occur within the following century that would have everlasting effects on the world as a whole.

The Sykes-Picot Agreement in 1916 set the terms for the partitioning of the Arab world following the end of the First World War, where a territorial mandate system was created. Britain gained control of Mesopotamia, the Arabian Gulf, Transjordan, as well as Palestine. Whereas the French gained the mandates of Syria and Lebanon. This work will focus on providing a history of the French mandate. More specifically, it will focus on the establishment and implementation of the French political structuring of the region and its effects on the region during and after the time of its existence.

The territories commonly known today as Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria, were referred to as the a single geographical entity known as “Greater Syria” prior to World War I. The region had been victim to centuries of imperial conquest in the region with its final conquerors (up until the victorious post-WW1 imperial powers staked their claims) were the Ottomans, of whom controlled the area from 1516 up until their demise. The Ottomans allowed a decent amount of freedom to the people (at least in contrast to the French, as it will be later made clear) of Greater Syria in terms of self governing their territories and local communities. During the war, France and Britain established a military administration called the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration. The administration helped the powers in the occupied provinces of the Middle East gain a clear foothold to assert their dominance in the region up until the establishment of their mandates in 1920 at the San Remo conference. The conference granted France control over both Syria and Lebanon, and was finalized by the League of Nations in 1923.

Arabs of the region fought alongside the allies in World War One against the Ottoman Empire in hopes to gain their own self determined states, free from any imperial boundaries which had been engraved in the region’s history for centuries. In fact, as soon as the defeat of the Ottomans came about, Arabs were already beginning to establish local governments and drafting a constitution. In 1920 the Arab nationalists declared Syria independent and Faisal I bin Hussein bin Ali al-Hashimi was installed as the king of the newly founded Arab Kingdom of Syria. The kingdom, by European standards, actually only had claims on Greater Syria as both Britain and France refused the idea of the kingdom as well as the recognition of Faisal as rightful ruler (although the British would later install Faisal as leader in their mandate of Iraq).

The kingdom was short lived and in fact only existed for about four months. Following the San Remo Conference which set the grounds for the British and French mandates, a series of diplomatic events broke out between France and the newly founded kingdom; Faisal facing an existential crisis of the independent state attempted to change the positions of the League of Nations about the mandate system. The French commander-in-chief, General Gouraud had openly negotiated with Faisal and in July of 1920, Gouraud presented a five point ultimatum to Faisal which was to be accepted or wholly rejected (either way, French forces would surely enter the region). The ultimatum called for; unconditional acceptance of the French mandate, acceptance of the French Syrian paper money based on the franc, abolition of conscription and reduction of armed forces, French military occupation of the railway and stations from Riyaq to Aleppo, and punishment of persons implicated in hostile acts against the French. Faisal accepted the ultimatum and ordered the armed forces of the kingdom to not meet their occupiers with hostility, however this command was ultimately denied by some officers and soldiers in the military. Finally, that same month, French troops entered Syria and easily put aside any and all Syrian resistance and on July 24, the French military entered Damascus. Faisal was deposed and the French officially claimed Syria to be under their authority. Thus, the French mandate of Syria and Lebanon was born, and the peoples of the Syria and Lebanon once again fell into the hands of imperial rule.

The Mandate: Life & Division

From the start, France sought to eliminate the threat of any Arab (and mainly Sunni) nationalist movements rising up against French rule. Hence, rather than having a single government of Syria, the French divided the mandated territories into several microstates which were based on religious or ethnic orientation. This would theoretically contribute to the shattering of pan-Arab unity, and the inhabitants of these small states would refrain from feeling any sense of affiliation with the inhabitants of others and contrary to unity, would feel separate.

In the north was the State of Aleppo, east of that was Sanjak of Alexandretta (there was a large Turkish population among the inhabitants and today the region itself is a part of Turkey, known as the Hatay province), just south of that was the Alawite State in the coastal-mountain country. The Alawites were a minority in Syria who were essentially what remained (aside from the Ismailis who remained with a relatively small population) of the spread Shia Islam in the area thousands of years before. The French showed significant interest in the Alawite minorities (as well as other minorities), they saw that they were differing from their Sunni counterparts that were more hostile to foreign rule. They were granted more autonomy, many positions in the French military, and made up local police authorities. One French Minister once wrote in a letter that the Alawites, along with the Druze, were the only “warlike races in the territories under mandate.”

South of the Alawite state was the Christian state of Greater Lebanon which became an independent republic under French control in September of 1926, with its very own official constitution which established a parliamentary system. The boundaries laid out by the French for Lebanon would prove to be perhaps the most problematic borders out of all the states. The Maronite campaign to expand the territory of Mount Lebanon after the fall of the Ottomans was led by Elias Hoayek who saw French protection as their only chance to achieve their goal of a Greater Lebanon. However the Maronites, while significant in size, would not be a majority in their new country. The borders would expand into port cities and regions which had large Sunni and Shiite populations who for the most part did not want to be ruled by the French and favored the idea of being a part of Syria. This resulted in an anti-Maronite sentiment that would go in hand with the already existing contempt for imperial rule among the Arab Muslim population.

To the right of Lebanon, in the center of Syria existed the State of Damascus, and finally, south of that was the Jabal al-Druze State, consisting of the Druze ethno-religious minority. Certain ethnic and religious minorities went wholly unrecognized such as the Kurds, Armenians, Jews, and specific sects of Christians.

The separate states did provoke some competitiveness amongst the people of the region, but still not as much as France would have liked. The direct rule from the French was just simply too restrictive. The Ottomans had at least allowed local self governance to ethnic and religious groups based on their own customs. Completely ignoring this fact, the French imposed a highly oppressive way of life and wholly rejected any notion of self-governance, even on a local level in the very beginning. The Franc was the official currency and was directed by only French bankers, learning French in schools was compulsory, the press was suppressed along with organized political activity as well as civil rights. Ultimately every aspect of everyday life was affected in some way by French rule.

Due to these factors, a multitude of violent revolts broke out, and although they were all suppressed, the French did change their views on how the region should be structured under their rule. Certain civil liberties were being gradually granted to people Iraq and other British mandated provinces, and consequently a call for more civil freedoms grew in Syria. Political activity was often led by groups of wealthy and educated Arab nationalists. In 1925, France permitted the formation of political parties. That same exact year on January first, the states of Aleppo and Damascus came together to create a single state (still mandated), the State of Syria; thus weakening tensions caused by division, but also putting off further, but inevitable, rebellion and organization against French rule in that specific region due to the certain level of centralization it granted the people.

Revolt & Collapse

The French misunderstanding of the ethno-religious complexities of the region were evident from the very beginning, and the oppressive and divisive rule certainly did not make matters better. These fatal mistakes are what lead to the largest revolt in the history of the mandate, The Great Druze Revolt.

The Ottomans could not effectively dominate and administer the Druze of the southwest mountains of Syria, and what the French came to realize was that they couldn’t either. Although there was infighting amongst the Druze community itself, they stood united against those who attempted to intervene in their own affairs, and in 1925, the Druze revolted. Within a month they took over the city of Salkhad, and a few weeks later they also captured Al-Suwayda.

News of the revolt spread and soon nationalist leaders in the State of Syria were inciting massive demonstrations in Damascus and Aleppo. The Arab nationalists, working with the Druze, asked for assistance. The Druze marched on Damascus. The mass mobilization against imperial rule made it seem for a brief period of time that the mandate system in Syria would be short lived and not leave as big a mark on the country. This was quelled when the French military began indiscriminately shelling Damascus resulting in the deaths of at least 5,000 Syrians. Although the end of the revolt was devastating, the French realized they could not maintain the current state of things without more bloodshed, and thus the grip loosened, but remained tight nonetheless.

In 1928 a turning point in the independence movement was reached. France permitted the formation of the National Bloc, a coalition of nationalist parties which be at the forefront of the Syrian political scene up until their independence. Multiple protests and demonstrations would take place in the next decade, and then WWII broke out. After the capitulation of France to Nazi Germany, France was no longer capable of keeping a firm grip on Syria or Lebanon. By 1945, a new, UN aligned government was elected whose legitimacy was recognized by both Britain and the USSR, however the French still had military control. In retaliation to resistance they again bombed Damascus and it was only until Great Britain threatened to support the Syrians that the French stopped. A UN resolution was reached, France was to withdraw from the countries. The Syrians and Lebanese were now independent, but the problems would not end here.

Aftermath: Ripples Of The Past

Throughout the history of the mandate, the French did little to none to actually lay the grounds for self-governance. In fact, basic freedoms including political organization and free speech were not granted as a part of any long term goals for establishing a functioning government, but they had to come through the compromises France was forced to make with the peoples in order to calm the resentment against their presence. The divisions they made, and the borders they drew lead to a muddled independent Syria that had little experience in governing affairs and an extremely small history of actual unity. The oppressive and prejudiced rule of the French only brought about increased political radicalization through the years.

Lebanon was left with a difficult political situation which was based on sectarian division within its own borders between the Christians and the Muslims, plus it had undetermined relation with it’s neighbors who thought that Lebanon should be apart of Syrian territory. These factors, along with the newly defined coastal borders in what were predominantly Muslim cities would result in all out war where Syria would invade Lebanon and have a military presence there until 2005.

French affection for some groups and dismissal of others would leave a mark of further systematic oppression. Groups such as Syrian Kurds, who have only just recently begun to attain basic liberties through their gains in territorial and autonomous power in the Syrian civil war with the establishment of Rojava and the SDF.

The flaws in the political and organizational structure of the French mandate can be clearly seen and pointed out from the very beginning of its implementation. It laid the foundations for political instability and religious as well as ethnic divides which have a profound impact on Syria, Lebanon, and the Middle East as a whole.