LEBANON’S DILEMMA; A
Revolving Identity Crisis. Part III. The Birth of “Grand Liban”
ABSTRACT:
“Grand Liban” as the
French called it, is Lebanon in its current borders as compared to the much
smaller version that was comprised of the Maronite and Druze areas only. The
new state was announced in September 1920 and the Maronite Church under
Patriarch Howayyek played a big role in the decision making. The move was
opposed by the “Syrian National Congress” and the battle of Maysaloun followed
and France entered Damascus forcefully after the glorious defeat of the Syrian
Army and the martyrdom of its leader Yusuf Al-Azma. Residents of the Lebanese Coastal
cities of Beirut, Tripoli and Saida (predominantly Sunnis) refused the new
entity and regarded it as a Western vassal.
FULL ARTICLE:
The brazen role of the
Turkish Army in the current situation in Idlib serves as a good reason to
remember that ever since the battle of Marj Dabiq in August 1516 and which
eventuated in the fall of all of Syria to Ottoman troops, Turkish military
presence did not completely leave Syrian soil and historically Syrian cities
such as Adana and Antioch are technically still under Turkish occupation.
The battle for Syrian
sovereignty has therefore been going on for centuries, and it certainly did not
end. It is much more ancient than the loss of Golan and even the creation of
Israel. Syrian territory has been chipped away and taken violently by invaders
at times when Syria was weak and unable to defend herself.
But whilst the Israeli
occupation of the Golan, and to a lesser extent the Turkish occupation of the
Iskenderun and Cilicia provinces, are easy to identify as being foreign, the
chipping away of Lebanon is more subtle, because Lebanon is meant to be an
independent Arab state that enjoys good relationships with Syria. In reality
however, Lebanon has historically been a part of Syria, and when the French
drew its current map, the move was opposed by the Syrian Government as well as by
a majority of civilians on both sides of the borders.
On the 1st of
September 1920, French General Gouraud announced the birth of Grand Liban
(Grand/Great Lebanon) in its current borders. Back then, it was questionable as
to whether or not this new state was to see its first centenary. As we approach
this landmark, the question remains viable even though we are only less than a
year away.
When Gouraud drew the map,
one of his objectives possibly was to establish a state in which there was no
overwhelming majority. He might have thought that instead of having a state
that is comprised of Maronites and Druze only, by adding Sunni and Shiite
elements to the demographics, the population would be so diverse that no single
party would be strong enough to cause strife.
It can also be argued
that a bigger and a stronger Lebanon would be stable and a better French ally
in the future.
Others will argue that
his objective was to divide and conquer Syria and that the exact location of
the Lebanese borders did not mean anything to him. There is no doubt that this
theory holds a lot of ground, especially that the creation of the independent
state of Lebanon was in itself an attempt to fragment and weaken Syria. The
issue at hand here however is the placement of the border line he chose. It is
about trying to answer the question of why did he include the Sunni and Shiite
regions? Why did he not leave them both or at least one of them with Syria?
What made him choose those particular borders for Grand Liban?
Whilst it is true that
the Sykes/Picot accord divided the Levant (Greater Syria) between British and
French-controlled territories, it would be right to say that it was by French,
not British, action that Lebanon was split away from Syria and given
independence.
With all of the above
said, the Maronite Church played a huge part in the creation of Lebanon, if not
the biggest part, and the French only needed to be convinced, and as they did
they complied and delivered.
To put it bluntly, as the
Ottoman Empire collapsed, the Maronite Church wanted to secure that Lebanese
Christians will not ever fall under Muslim rule again. The head of the Church
back then was Patriarch Elias Butros Al-Howayyik. He was a strong and outspoken
opponent of Turkey and was in fact persecuted by the Ottomans and put under
home arrest. He was only released after the Vatican and France intervened.
A clear distinction
however must be drawn between patriotic Levantine Christians and the position
of the Maronie Church at that time. Certainly, Christians in general and
Maronites in particular did not unanimously agreed with the vision of Howayyek
and it would be unfair to even try to speculate what percentage did. As a
matter of fact, many leaders of the political Lebanese and Syrian Left have
been Christians. Patriotic Lebanese, Syrian, Palestinian and other Arab
Christians remain till today as an integral part of the heart and soul of the
Axis of Resistance. And back a century
ago, during the period known as the cultural awakening, most Syrian and
Lebanese patriotic writers, poets and journalists of influence were Christians.
Leading up to WWI and
after long sectarian strife, the state of Small Lebanon (Mount Lebanon without
the coastal cities) was created and put under Western protection as we have
seen in previous articles. As the war broke out and Turkey and the West were on
opposite sides of the fence, Turkey abolished the special status under which
Mount Lebanon was, put the area under siege and prevented any food supplies
from entering. Purportedly, one third of the civilians died from starvation. It
was an act of Ottoman revenge because the Ottomans did not like the Western
intervention into the affairs of its territories and putting Mount Lebanon
under special privileges.
If anything, the harsh
treatment and starvation made the Maronite Church more determined to seek total
independence from anything that was reminiscent to the past; and this included
Syria because Syria has an overwhelming Muslim majority. In brief, they wanted
Lebanon to become a Christian-controlled state with a Western outlook and very
little to do with its own region.
So why was it exactly
that Patriarch Al-Howayyik insisted that the big coastal cities of Beirut,
Tripoli and Saida be added to the new state knowing that they have a Sunni
majority? No one really knows other than speculating that in forming a new
state that has a powerful Maronite Church and political entity, one that
guaranteed that the head of state (ie President) and Army Chief are both
Maronites, will be able to survive and bring protection and security to the
Christian population. Perhaps he also thought that a larger Lebanon with major
cities and ports will be more economically viable.
As the Patriarch was
doing his bid trying to convince the French that Lebanon needs to be
independent and modeled on his own vision, quite at the opposite dipole the
“Syrian National Congress” was convened in Damascus Syria in May 1919.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_National_Congress.
In its final report, the Congress concluded that "there be no separation of the
southern part of Syria, known as Palestine, nor of the littoral western zone,
which includes Lebanon, from the Syrian country." The Congress declared independence
and appointed King Faisal as head of state. Reading in between the lines it is
clear to see that an independent Lebanon was perceived to be almost as
unacceptable as the creation of Israel.
The French response was brutally
swift, and it was meant to crush what they saw as a rebellion. A modern French
army of 12,000 men equipped with tanks and supported by warplanes was sent to
enter Damascus and forcefully if needed. But the former capital of the Omayyad
Empire was not going to greet the invaders with roses. Army Chief/Minister of
Defence Yusuf Al-Azma was sent with very ill-equipped few hundred soldiers and
few volunteers to make a mark in history. They knew they had no chance of
winning, but they wanted to die standing. The heroic defeat in which Al-Azma
himself was killed remains as one of Syria’s greatest stories of glory.
Syrians will never forget
Maysaloun.
It was only a few months
later, in December that French General Gouraud announced the birth of “Grand
Liban”. In his speech, he referred to Maysaloun as a battle that the French
have fought to save Lebanon, and perhaps in retrospect it was; but not from
foreign invaders as he put it.
With the declaration of
“Grand Liban” as a separate entity, two opposite passions developed across the
borders between Lebanon and Syria, and those passions deepened over the
decades. In Syria, a growing concern that Syrian territory has been chipped
away bit by bit. First of all, Turkey kept the district of Cilicia, then
Lebanon was created, then the French gave away the district of Iskenderun to
Turkey as a sweetener, and last but not least, Palestine was chipped away and
Israel was established. It is little wonder why patriotic Syrians galvanized
behind President Assad to thwart the greatest of all attacks back in March 2011,
but this is another story.
Lebanon was seen in Syria
as a Western vassal, a love-child of the West and a byproduct of sectarianism;
and in more ways than one, it was.
On the other side of the
coin, when Lebanon eventually became independent, to the Maronite Church and
political establishment, independence was mostly seen and celebrated as
independence from Syria; though Syria historically was neither a culprit nor
foreign. Patriarch Al-Howayyik finally got what he wanted and Lebanon became a
stand-alone state in its current borders.
The declaration of “Grand
Liban” had a mixed response. Those who wanted an independent Lebanon, who were
mostly Christian Maronites were celebrating. However, city dwellers who were
mostly Sunnis were revolting.
Not only did the people
of Beirut, Tripoli and Saida, in all of their religions and sects, refuse to be
sliced away from Syria, but they also did not want to belong to a state that
will forever be a Western puppet; or at least this was how Lebanon was seen in
their eyes. They took to the streets demanding Syrian unity, secularism, and
upholding the resolutions reached by the Syrian National Congress, but to no
avail. The decision was already made and the battle of Maysaloun was already
lost.
Many if not most of the Sunni
Lebanese partaking in the current street uprisings brandishing Lebanese flags
have no idea at all that a hundred years ago their great grandparents took to
the streets denouncing the precursor of this same flag. This part of history is
not taught in schools in Lebanon, but in Syria, every man woman and child knows
that Lebanon was taken away from Syria by the treachery of the West and
complicit action of certain Lebanese groups.
Back in the 1920’s, the
Syrian identity of Lebanon was not questionable and if anything, it was the
Lebanese identity and nationhood that was repudiated and even ridiculed by
most. Among other legacies that still live on, it is very obvious in the writings
of Gibran Kahlil Gibran, a Maronite who considered Lebanon as a part of Syria.
Much has changed over the
last century, and the Lebanese did not stop to wonder and ponder what their
real identity is.
Does the current uprising
reveal any change? This is what we shall try to examine in the upcoming
articles.
No comments:
Post a Comment