0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
A Farcaster Exclusive
How France’s Mandate System Created the Modern Syrian State
As Syria emerges from over half a century of Assad family rule, it’s crucial to understand the colonial foundations that shaped this troubled nation. While France did indeed play a decisive role in creating modern Syria’s borders and governmental structures, the claim that France “installed Hafez al-Assad as dictator” fundamentally misunderstands both the timeline and the complex political forces that brought the Assad dynasty to power.
The French Creation of Syria
France’s role in creating Syria was indeed profound and consequential. Following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire after World War I, France was assigned the League of Nations mandate for Syria and Lebanon on September 29, 1923, which included the territory of present-day Lebanon and Alexandretta in addition to modern Syria. This represented the implementation of the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement between Britain and France, which had divided Ottoman territories between the colonial powers even before the war’s end.
France originally planned to establish three sectarian states: an Alawi state in the north, a Sunni Muslim state at the center, and a Druze state in the south, with the three eventually to be incorporated into a federal Syria. This divide-and-rule strategy reflected French colonial thinking that sought to prevent unified resistance by exploiting religious and ethnic divisions.
The artificial nature of Syria’s creation cannot be overstated. Politically, “Syria” acquired a narrower meaning after Lebanon, Palestine, and Transjordan had been detached from geographical Syria. France carved up the natural geographic and cultural unit of Greater Syria, creating borders that served French interests rather than reflecting organic political or social realities on the ground.
The French mandatory administration carried out much constructive work, roads were built, town planning was carried out, urban amenities were improved, land tenure was reformed in some districts, and agriculture was encouraged. The University of Damascus was established, with its teaching being mainly in Arabic. Yet these modernisation efforts came at the cost of political autonomy and were designed to serve French strategic interests in the region.
Syrian Resistance and the Struggle for Independence
From the beginning, Syrian society rejected French rule. The conclusions of the Permanent Mandates Commission confirmed the opposition of Syrians to the mandate in their country as well as to the Balfour Declaration, and their demand for a unified Greater Syria encompassing Palestine. This resistance was deeply cultural and religious, as Syrians saw French rule as an affront to their Islamic identity and Arab nationalism.
The most significant challenge to French rule came in 1925. A revolt in Jabal Al-Durūz, sparked by local grievances, led to an alliance between the Druze rebels and the nationalists of Damascus. For a time the rebels controlled much of the countryside, and in October 1925, bands entered the city of Damascus itself, leading to a two-day bombardment by the French.
Despite French attempts to maintain control by encouraging sectarian divisions and isolating urban and rural areas, the revolt spread from the countryside and united Syrian Druze, Sunnis, Shiites, Alawis, and Christians. This unity across sectarian lines demonstrated that French divide-and-rule tactics could not permanently suppress Syrian nationalism.
The French military responded with brutal counter-insurgency techniques that prefigured those that would be used later in Algeria and Indo-China, including house demolitions, collective punishments of towns, executions, population transfers, and the use of heavy armor in urban neighborhoods. The revolt was eventually subdued in 1926-27 via French aerial bombardment of civilian areas, including Damascus.
The End of French Rule and Syrian Independence
Pressured from Syrian nationalists and the British forces, France evacuated their troops on April 17, 1946, which marked the creation of the new, independent Syrian republic. France’s departure left behind a country with artificial borders, weak institutions, and deep sectarian divisions that had been both exploited and exacerbated by colonial rule.
The post-independence period was marked by extraordinary political instability. Between 1949 and 1963, senior officers engaged in countless military coups, there were three alone in 1949. This chaos reflected the fundamental weakness of the state structures France had created, which lacked legitimacy among the Syrian people and were ill-suited to governing a diverse, fractured society.
The Assad Rise
This is where historical accuracy becomes crucial. Hafez al-Assad came to power not through French installation, but through a complex series of internal Syrian power struggles that occurred decades after French withdrawal.
The Ba’th Party was formed in 1947 as a reaction against Western colonialism and capitalism, aiming to combat Western colonialism and promote Arab nationalism. The party gained strength in the politically tumultuous Syria that emerged after independence from France in 1946.
Following a series of short-lived regimes and the dissolution of the United Arab Republic in 1961, the Ba’thists took control after a coup in March 1963. Assad, an Alawite from the coastal mountains, gradually accumulated power within the Ba’th Party structure through his control of the air force and later as defense minister.
Only when Assad successfully carried out a bloodless coup on November 13, 1970 did the rivalries end. It was Syria’s tenth military coup in seventeen years. This coup, which Assad termed the “Corrective Revolution,” was orchestrated by Assad exploiting the rivalry between the Marxist-socialist and nationalist factions within the party, ousting the existing leadership.
By 1970, twenty-four years after French withdrawal, Assad had consolidated power entirely through Syrian political mechanisms, exploiting the institutional weaknesses and sectarian divisions that France had indeed created, but doing so as a Syrian actor pursuing Syrian power, not as a French agent.
France’s Unintended Legacy
The tragedy is that France’s colonial policies created many of the conditions that enabled Assad’s rise and consolidation of power. Assad used the secular Ba’th party as a cover for installing the Alawite minority into important positions throughout the special forces, intelligence and armored corps. This sectarian approach to power echoed the French colonial strategy of privileging minority groups to maintain control.
The artificial borders France created also played a role in Syria’s subsequent instability. The truncated Syria that emerged from French rule lacked the natural economic resources and geographic coherence of Greater Syria, making it dependent on external powers and vulnerable to internal divisions.
France’s infrastructure investments and administrative structures, while modernising in some respects, were designed to serve colonial extraction rather than indigenous development. The University of Damascus and road networks were real achievements, but they served a system designed to maintain French influence rather than foster genuine Syrian self-determination.
The Continuing Relevance of Colonial Legacy
As Syria attempts to rebuild after the Assad era, understanding France’s historical role remains vital. The sectarian divisions that Assad exploited and deepened were not primordial features of Syrian society, they were political constructs that were institutionalised and weaponized first by French colonial administrators and later by Syrian dictators.
The weakness of Syrian state institutions, which made military coups possible and authoritarian rule necessary for maintaining order, can be traced directly to the French mandate period. France created a state that could govern but could not represent, that could extract resources but could not build consensus, that could maintain order but could not foster legitimacy.
Conclusion
Today’s Syria faces the monumental task of overcoming both colonial legacies and decades of Assad rule. The sectarian divisions that France institutionalised and Assad weaponised must be transcended through inclusive governance structures. The weak institutions that enabled military coups must be strengthened through democratic accountability. The artificial borders that created regional instability must be managed through cooperative regional arrangements.
France, for its part, has a responsibility to acknowledge the harmful long-term consequences of its colonial policies while supporting Syrian efforts at genuine self-determination. This means backing inclusive political processes rather than sectarian proxies, supporting institution-building rather than strongmen, and respecting Syrian sovereignty rather than pursuing French interests.
The story of French-Syrian relations is the complex tale of how colonial boundaries and institutions created conditions of instability that Syrian actors then navigated, exploited, and perpetuated according to their own logic and interests. Understanding this complexity is essential for avoiding both the simplistic narratives that obscure historical responsibility and the deterministic thinking that denies Syrian agency.
As Syria writes its next chapter, it must grapple honestly with both its colonial inheritance and its own choices. Only by understanding how France shaped the Syrian state, without installing its eventual dictator, can Syrians build institutions that serve their own interests rather than the legacies of foreign rule.
References
1. Hafez al-Assad Biography
2. Current Affairs - Post Assad
3. French Syria (1919-1946), DADM Project
4. Council on Foreign Relations - Remembering Hafez al-Assad 0 reply
3 recasts
4 reactions
