LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

of the Ottoman Empire as a whole. Any misstep could risk opening the whole Eastern Question, a prospect that all the European powers preferred to avoid.

      These kinds of considerations constrained the action of the European governments, compelling them to avoid confrontations and seek compromises. Their basic determination to hold on to the principle of the integrity of the Ottoman Empire, the only and best guarantee against their own conflicting ambitions and aspirations and a potential European war, led them to water down initial proposals to restructure the whole Syrian province and to agree on a more limited and conciliatory objective. The 1861 Règlement for Mount Lebanon was the result of this general compromise.

      In contrast, European unofficial circles were less sensitive to the petty constraints of international politics, which were quite often misunderstood and denounced by the press, especially so in France. French commentators and publicists who had extolled the bold and firm measures adopted by its government at the beginning of the crisis were eventually disappointed by their poor results. High expectations of a decisive and comprehensive solution for the Christians of Lebanon contrasted sharply with the semi-autonomous status stipulated by the Règlement of 1861, which was thus perceived as a French defeat and a joint Turkish—British victory. Several commentaries and pamphlets appeared condemning the dictates of the diplomats and their lack of discernment. In short, they were accused of having failed the Christians of the Levant.¹⁹

      The differing approaches of the French official and unofficial circles to the crisis once more had immediate repercussions in Mount Lebanon, which were, in turn, further complicated by the fact that local French officials on the spot were themselves at variance with one another. Local parties discerned with difficulty these nuances and variations in French attitudes, which they often confused, thus generating many misunderstandings and disappointments. The following sections follow the impact in Mount Lebanon proper of official and unofficial French views and their interaction with those of the Lebanese themselves, focusing on three different but interlinked types of activities, which distinguished official French action: the working of the European Commission in Beirut, the action and impact of the French Expeditionary Force, and the policy adopted by the French government. Although all three were supposed to translate one same orientation, they differed in approach and conclusions.

      THE WORKINGS OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION

      The European Commission began its work in Beirut on October 5, 1860.²⁰ The five European commissioners,²¹ who had received similar instructions from their governments, were directed, first, to determine the causes and origins of the latest events in Syria, to ascertain the responsibility of the chiefs of the insurrection and of the Ottoman officials and bring the culprits to justice; second, to determine the extent of the losses of the Christian population and to devise the appropriate means to indemnify the victims; and, finally, to prevent the recurrence of such events, through whatever modifications deemed necessary to the organization of the Mountain.²² Furthermore, they were enjoined to devise a common final report, thus encouraging some conciliation and cooperation in their work.²³ At the same time, they had to defend the contradictory views and policies of their governments and the interests of their local protégés, which limited flexibility in their delicate negotiations.

      By the end of the day, serious disagreements among all parties and especially France, on the one hand, and Great Britain and the Ottoman government, on the other, obstructed the formulation of one common report. This situation compelled the commissioners to present to their ambassadors and to the officials of the Porte, who were to have the final say on the issue, two different projects for the reorganization of Lebanon, each one accompanied by the particular reservations of the French and British commissioners. The first, based on the 1842–45 arrangements, provided for the establishment of three separate districts, one for each of the Maronite, Druze, and Greek Orthodox communities, and the segregation of the populations of the Mountain in order to fit these new administrative units. It was opposed by the French commissioner, Leon Béclard. The second one, inspired by the pre-1840 situation, stipulated a reunified Mount Lebanon administered by a Christian governor. It was strongly criticized by the British commissioner, Lord Dufferin.

      These two plans did not represent the option favored by the European representatives, who aimed at a complete reorganization of the Syrian provinces. But, they were brought, against their own better judgment, to abandon this initial stance and to fall back reluctantly on the two projects designed for Lebanon alone.

      Therefore, the significance of the workings of the European Commission should not be judged solely on the basis of the two resulting projects presented to Istanbul. A fair assessment of its labors should rather include the representatives’ analysis of the situation and the different alternatives they considered, which represented a unique attempt at the definition, analysis, and solution of problems of the region. The meetings of the commission also had a critical impact on the local population and a significant effect on the subsequent development of local nationalist ideas.

      Indeed, the meeting of the commission in Beirut was in itself an unprecedented occurrence for the local inhabitants. They were aware of the purpose of its mission, and they indirectly joined in its workings. Even though the commissioners did not try to consult them, local parties closely followed the various alternatives proposed, which were apparently widely circulated; they carefully considered them, and rejected or supported them, to the best of their abilities. All kinds of projects were circulated, ranging from some minor reforms in the Ottoman administration of Syria to the virtual independence of this province from the Ottoman Empire. Imaginary prospective maps were drawn and redrawn. Several candidates were examined to fill in the eventual positions of prince, viceroy, governor. The question of Mount Lebanon and the issue of its closer assimilation with the other Syrian provinces, or the extension of its administrative autonomy and boundaries, were closely scrutinized.

      If we take into consideration the diverse alternatives examined by the commissioners, those suggested by the press and the pamphleteers, and those that circulated among the inhabitants, it is remarkable to note that all the nationalist ideas and options that would be adopted by some local party or other, from 1860 until 1920, were formulated and examined at this time. A regenerated and strengthened Ottoman Empire, a semi-independent Greater Syria or Greater Lebanon, an independent or only autonomous Smaller Lebanon within a Greater Syria, an Arab kingdom in the whole of Syria or a Muslim Arab kingdom in the interior, and a Christian principality on the coast: all of these alternatives, to mention only the most prominent, surfaced then.²⁴

      

      The terms of the nationalist quest and debate that occupied the elites of this region until the outbreak of World War I were thus all set during the two decisive years of 1860 and 1861. Future Arab, Syrian, Lebanese, and Ottoman nationalists did not develop any new alternatives out of those that had been elaborated then, and only fell back upon, pondered, and developed the ones already at hand during the half-century that separated them from the date when their ultimate fate was decided. Similarly, the European powers often recalled the options examined then, when subsequent crises led them to envisage alternatives to the Ottoman Empire.

      Thus, the impact and significance of the meeting of the European Commission for the future of the region largely transcend its mere workings or its final conclusions. It represented the first serious examination of the Syrian and Lebanese questions and served as a source of inspiration and reference for the future. Its deliberations deserve, therefore, close scrutiny.

      Initially, the European representatives devoted a considerable time—twenty-five out of twenty-nine sessions—to determining the responsibility for the latest events and the retribution and indemnities to be assigned.²⁵ They did not formally begin their examination of the reorganization of Lebanon before March 1861. However, during that time, important informal negotiations did take place between the commissioners on the future of Syria and Lebanon.

      The tone was set in the first days of November by the British commissioner, Lord Dufferin, who elaborated a plan for the reorganization of the whole of Syria.²⁶ Attributing the causes of the events first and foremost to a deficient and weak Ottoman administration in Syria, linked to a sorry state of things in Istanbul, Dufferin's project confronted this issue outright. He proposed the establishment

Скачать книгу