إستماع Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

 

Lebanon proclaimed its independence on  November 22, 1943, a quarter of a century after the Ottoman Empire’s collapse and the French landing in Beirut, thus laying the political foundations of a sovereign state.

An independence and sovereignty hard-won, yet still contested—not by the former colonial power, but by a neighboring state, Syria, which would occupy the land of the Cedars for nearly thirty years, only establishing official diplomatic relations with its neighbor in 2008.Notwithstanding, some political currents in Syria would continue to call for Lebanon’s annexation.

 

During the process of dismembering the Ottoman Empire, two opposing theses contested the historical relationship between modern-day Lebanon and Syria, which were presented by various delegations at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference.

According to the first thesis, modern Lebanon was always an integral part of Syria, and its separation was the result of French colonialism. This view was championed by pan-Arabists like the Sherif of Mecca Hussein bin Ali and later by the founders of the Baath Party, Michel Aflaq and Salah al-Bitar; as well as the pan-Syrianists of the Syrian Central Committee, such as Chucri Ghanem, George Samné, and Jamil Mardam Bey, and later, still, by the Syrian Social Nationalist Party, founded by Antoun Saadeh in 1932.

The opposing thesis, favored by Phoenicianists, such as Patriarch Hoyek and some members of La revue phénicienne (including Charles Corm, Michel Chiha, and Said Akl), asserted that Lebanon had always been distinct from Syria.

While the French Mandate formalized this distinction with the proclamation of Greater Lebanon in September 1920, both narratives share an important misunderstanding: the anachronistic confusion between historical Syria and the present-day Syrian Arab Republic (SAR). There is, however, a clear rupture between historical, geographical Syria and the modern SAR, along with a continuity in the legacy that historical Syria passed on to both the Lebanese and Syrian republics.

Succession, Not Continuation

In political geography, there are two forms of transfer of responsibility for international relations: continuation and succession. For example, the Byzantine Empire is the continuator of the Roman Empire after its fall in 476; France is its successor. In the first case, despite major territorial and political changes, the state continues to enjoy the same legal personality. In the case of succession, however, there is a break: the state is given a new legal personality, that is based on what existed on its territory before, but that does not claim to be a mere continuation.

The SAR is not the continuator of historical Syria. It emerged on the map 1,300 years after the disappearance of that Syria. Its legal personality is entirely different—indeed, foreign to that of the former. Moreover, the SAR is not the sole heir to historical Syria, as its existence does not result from a compromise or treaty to which historical Syria was a party. The contemporary SAR, like other states in the Middle East, succeeded the Ottoman Empire. The term “Syria” is a toponym used by the Greeks since Herodotus (5th century BCE). Roman Syria was a significant province centered around Antioch from the beginning of the Empire. A cradle of Christianity, it spoke Aramaic (the precursor of Syriac), Greek, Latin, Armenian, Arabic, and other languages. Between the 3rd and 6th centuries, it was divided into several new provinces, such as Syrian Phoenicia (governed from Tyre), Lebanese Phoenicia (Damascus and Homs), and Theodorias (Latakia), among others (according to the Notitia Dignitatum and the collection of Justinian’s laws). While it was the heart of the Eastern Diocese (meaning a governmental area) of the Empire, this Syria was never sovereign. The official existence of Roman Syria ended in 637 when Arab-Muslim armies took Antioch.

Part of the Heritage

The name “Syria” was preserved in medieval Christian cosmography, deeply shaped by biblical topography, where “Syria” often referred to the Holy Land.

The term Souriyya appears on Ottoman maps in the Cedid Atlas (the “new atlas”) of 1803, curiously after Napoleon’s Egyptian campaign, and referred to a small geographical area around Mount Hermon. From 1867, it became the name for an Ottoman administrative division, with a Syrian vilayet centered on Damascus.

In 1920, after World War I and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the Arab Kingdom of Syria was created byFaysal, son of Hussein. Although it was well-received by many, this state lasted only five months and was not recognized. After the Battle of Maysaloun in July 1920, Faysal left Damascus and accepted a new kingdom in Iraq, under British mandate.

 

In addition to proclaiming Greater Lebanon, the French Mandate proceeded to divide the remaining territories, and the name “Syria” officially reappeared on the map on December 5, 1924, with the proclamation of this state (which united the territories of Damascus and Aleppo, later incorporating those of the Druzes and Alawites in 1936, and losing the Sanjak of Alexandretta to Turkey in 1939). This state, which would become fully independent in April 1946 under the name Syrian Arab Republic, cannot, however, claim to be the sole heir of Roman Syria.

Therefore, this argument cannot serve as a historical basis for contesting the independence and sovereignty of the Lebanese Republic vis-à-vis its neighbor. Proponents of Lebanon’s independence can justifiably and without fear claim their share of the legacy of ancient Syria.

 

Jack Keilo, Franco-Syrian academic. He graduated as Doctor in political geography and urban planning from the Sorbonne University.

 

Du Liban indépendant et de son « héritage syrien »

عن “الإرث السوري” للبنان