LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

from Istanbul, and under the supervision of the European powers. The whole of Syria was to be unified into a single administrative district and entrusted to one governor-general chosen by the Porte in conjunction with the great powers. In order to shoulder his responsibilities, the governor-general of Syria would have to be empowered with adequate means to fulfill his mission. The financial policy of the administration would need to be locally determined and controlled and sufficient troops permanently quartered in this province. The Ottoman minister for foreign affairs, Fuad Pasha, Dufferin believed, represented the most appropriate candidate for the position of governor-general.²⁷

      Rightly suspecting that the main objection to his plan lay in the fact that the reorganization of Syria into a single province and the investment of the governor-general with such extraordinary prerogatives might be construed as inaugurating the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire, the British commissioner emphasized the fact that the new governor of Syria was to remain “the servant of the Sultan, and the governor, not the viceroy of the Province.” Furthermore, he added, with a touch of skepticism, “the disconnection of Syria from the Porte ought to be of a nature to admit . . . its reincorporation in the Empire, should the day arise when a strong and capable government shall be established at Constantinople” [my italics]. At any rate, this solution, Dufferin asserted, was the best suited to ensure the welfare and security of the Syrian population, consisting of “ten distinct and uncivilized races . . . again split into very fanatical sects.”²⁸

      Dufferin's proposal, as he explained, stemmed from his basic belief that the principle of fusion of these diverse populations was the proper panacea to their former divisions and trials: “As a general rule when you have to deal with a large population differing in their religious opinions, but perfectly assimilated in language, manners and habits of thought, the principle of fusion rather than that of separation is the one to be adopted. Religious beliefs ought not be converted into a geographical expression, and a wise government would insist upon the various subject sects subordinating their polemical to their civil relations with one another.”²⁹ Gradually, he added in his distinctive style, the “barbarous distinctions which have hitherto divided its inhabitants into innumerable tribes and sects, may be expected to soften down; differences of race and of religion will to a certain extent become subordinate to those social relations, which a community of interests will establish.”³⁰ The establishment of a strong and centralized government in Syria, Dufferin concluded, was the most appropriate arrangement to reach such a state of things.

      Tackling the delicate issue of Lebanon, Dufferin identified two causes for its latest disturbances: the ambition of the Maronite clergy to establish Christian supremacy in the Mountain, which provoked the animosity of the other sects and especially that of the Druzes, as well as the dissatisfaction of the Ottoman authorities with the partial autonomy of Mount Lebanon and their continual schemes to stimulate the animosity of the Maronites and the Druzes in order to discredit the government of the Mountain. Furthermore, looking back at the regulations of 1845, Dufferin determined that both the Druzes and the Maronites had proven incapable of governing either themselves or each other. Therefore, he added: “If we had before us a tabula rasa, I would be inclined to say that the simplest and most practical arrangement would be to assimilate the Mountain to the rest of the pashalik and entrust its administration to the governor of the region.”³¹

      

      Indeed, the British commissioner saw no reason to exempt Lebanon from what he believed to be a generally beneficial administration. Such a system, he contended, represented a better guarantee for the security of its Christian populations—and the Druzes for that matter—than their former “anomalous” and “ill-defined” privileges. “Such privileges are at best a bad expedient invented to protect those who enjoy them against the ill effects of a worse government. When a good government is in operation, they are an embarrassment to the rulers, and a disadvantage to the ruled.”³²

      However, Dufferin clearly saw that France would never consent to despoil the Christian sector of Mount Lebanon of its former privileges, and that European public opinion would view with indignation any European intervention leading to a deprivation of former Christian privileges and the reestablishment of a reinforced Ottoman rule, a fact that might be construed as “handling them over in a still more defenceless condition to the tender mercies of their persecutors.” Therefore, he observed, a compromise must be sought “reconciling the practical with the sentimental exigencies of the situation.”³³ He thus advanced the idea of allowing the northern sector of Mount Lebanon, inhabited mainly by Christians, to retain its former relative autonomy under its qaimaqam, while leaving the rest of the Mountain under the same government as the remaining Syrian provinces. In order to mitigate the inconvenience of this necessary imperium into imperio, the British commissioner insisted that the qaimaqam should be appointed by the governor-general of Syria. Later on, at the request of the French commissioner, Béclard, he conceded the reunification of the whole Mountain, including the mixed sectors, on the condition that its administration be entrusted to a Christian non-native governor, who should differ in no respect from any other pasha of the province.

      Dufferin's project, once disclosed, exerted a “real fascination”³⁴ over most people in Beirut. Its impact on some local groups and personalities, and its repercussions on the simultaneous emergence of the Syrianist ideal, expressed at the time by Butrus Bustani, is examined in chapter 5.³⁵ Just as important, however, was its effect on the workings of the European Commission.

      When Dufferin revealed his plan to the European commissioners in a private meeting at his house on December 20, it rallied the unanimous approval of all of his colleagues.³⁶ Until February 1861, when peremptory instructions from the European courts, following strong protests from the Porte, enjoined the commissioners to confine their labors strictly to the reorganization of Lebanon, Dufferin's plan seemed to have won the day. At any rate, it remained the sole common denominator among all of the commissioners and the most complete and coherent project presented.

      Surprisingly enough, the French commissioner was easily won over by the plan of his British colleague in this first phase of the negotiations. He has often been accused by contemporary publicists and many historians of having been a poor defender of French and Maronite interests, and of having been totally subjugated by the personalities of Dufferin and Fuad Pasha. In fact, this perceived weakness stemmed from the fact that, as time passed, his original convictions were shaken by his immediate experience of concrete realities. Moreover, Béclard seemed to have been genuinely swayed by the views of his British colleague. As a result, he acquired many doubts as to the propriety of the project that his government had asked him to defend.

      Upon his arrival, Béclard was considering other alternatives. Influenced by the special instructions of his minister, who had enjoined him to defend as best as he could the interests of the Maronites,³⁷ and by some recurrent themes in traditional French policy, he intended to propose to the Commission the establishment of an independent Christian principality extending over Mount Lebanon and the adjoining seacoast.³⁸ After some time in Beirut, Béclard began to question some of his original views and to develop other opinions.

      Shortly after the informal agreement of the European representatives to Dufferin's plan, Béclard sent a report to his minister in Paris, on December 28, 1860, arguing in favor of such a project. A total reorganization of Syria, he asserted, was “the only way to follow if we want to build something durable and serious.” Moreover, this idea did not disagree with the principle of the maintenance of the ancient privileges of the Christians of the Mountain to which his government seemed so attached. It presented the advantage of extending to the Christians of the Syrian province as a whole the privileges formerly enjoyed by those of Lebanon only. This combination, he went on, had a better chance of guaranteeing the security and happiness of the inhabitants of the Mountain than their alleged traditional privileges, which were, when closely examined, “almost illusory,” and apart from some rare occasions, “have not in the least guaranteed the security and the development of the interests of the [local] populations.”

      The real banes of the Mountain, Béclard asserted, were the “feudal and the theocratic” systems, and their abolition would be much more beneficial to the Mountain than their confirmation. For that

Скачать книгу