Copyright © 20 15 by Academ ic Publishing H ouse Researcher
Published in the Russian Federation
European Researcher
H as been issued since 20 10 . ISSN 2219-8 229
E-ISSN 2224-0 136
Vol. 94, Is. 5, pp. 373-38 0 , 20 15
DOI: 10 .1318 7/ er.20 15.94.373
www.erjournal.ru
Political sciences
Политические науки
UDC 323
N a tio n a lis tic Tre n d s in Mo d e rn S yria
1 Dilshad Muham m ad 2 Filiz Katm an
1 Istan bul Aydin University, Turkey
MA, Political Scien ce an d In ternational Relation s, Social Sciences Institute 2 Istan bul Aydin University, Turkey
Assist. Prof. Dr., Departm en t of Political Scien ce and Intern ational Relations, Faculty of Econom ics and Adm inistrative Sciences
Ab s tra ct
This article explores dynam ics behind the em ergen ce of different nation alistic currents that dom inated the m odern Syrian political scen e. By “m odern”, here, it is m eant the period between 18 46, when the term “Syria” was, for the first tim e, officially associated with a specific territory, and 20 0 0 when Syria’s “fierce”, not strong, ruler H afez al-Asad died. As such, the article covers m ultiple periods as one continuous period. Arab Nationalism , which defeated other currents like Pan Syrianism and Com m unism , com es on the top of these currents. The article also shows how partisan , clan and/ or fam ily interests led to the utilization of various nationalist thoughts in this regard.
Ke yw o rd s: Syria, Pan-Syrianism , Arab Nation alism .
In tro d u ctio n
The rise of nationalism in Europe during the 18th an d the 19th centuries did not rem ain lim ited to the European contexts. Since early 20th century, n ationalism , in its m odern sen se, gradually appeared in the Middle East. World War I con ditions an d the dissolution of the Ottom an Em pire stim ulated this appearan ce as well. In such a context, the subject of this article is studyin g nationalism in the Syrian case. The article, m ore precisely, focuses on Pan Syrianism and Arab Nation alism in Syria.
The aim of the article is to answer its research question of “H as Arab Nationalism been the only nation alist current in Syria?” To achieve this aim , the article starts by looking for what Syria refers to. The article goes on by elaborating colonial contexts like the French Mandate in Syria where early m odern politicization of Syrian society/ societies took place. In the following section, the article directly sheds light on Pan Syrianism and Arab Nationalism and how these two nationalism s evolved. Next, and as the country gains its indepen dence in 1946, the article continues tracing nationalism and its relation with Syrian governm en ts and features how Arab Nation alism becam e the ruling n ationalist trend in Syria.
As a result, the article shows that Pan Syrianism was a territory-based nationalism and em erged due intern al dynam ics while Arab Nationalism was an ethnic one an d was a part of a wider version of nationalism . Another result shows that Pan Syrianism started to decline before, and shortly after, Syria’s. The form ation of the United Arab Republic in 1956 enabled Pan Arab Nation alist Al Baath Party cam e to the power.
As for the m ethodology of the article, prim ary resources like m aps and m an uscripts by political parties and/ or their leaders have been studied. H ence, the m ethod used in this article is content an alysis m ethod. This m ethod has been chosen as the analysis of som e original texts, prim arily written in Arabic, was essential in con ductin g the study in the fram ework of this article. On the secondary resources level, works of prom inen t scholars who m ainly or partly touched on Syrian politics in general have been reviewed. The article also m akes references to som e scholars of nationalism and state who studied the notion theoretically. The literature review conducted for the article covered academ ic books an d peer viewed journal articles. In this regard, Daniel Pipes’ Greater Sy ria : The H istory of an Am bition is considered an indispen sable book for students of Pan Syrianism . Philip S. Khoury’s Sy ria an d the French M andate: The Politics of Arab N ationalism , 1920 -1945 gives an excellen t elaboration on the rise of Arab Nationalism in the pre-independen ce era in Syria. As such, m ethodology applied throughout the article is qualitative as the article analyzes origin al texts as well as the literature written on the topic.
Te rm in o lo gy
There is no consen sus on how the term “Syria” exactly appeared. Yet there are concrete references that it is a Greek term . Accordin g to Lam ia R. Shehadeh, “Syria” was coined by the Greeks who derived it from the nam e “Assyria” and it was used in late 6th century BC (Shehadeh, 20 11: 18 , 25) (Pipes, 1990 : 13). Other possible etym ological origins of “Syria” are, according to Shehadeh, the Cun eiform Suri, the Ugaritics sry n and H ebrew Siry on. (Shehadeh, 20 11: 18 ).
Syria was n am ed by its different conquerors according to their vantage point; Ebernari (Beyond the River) by Persian s, Al-Sham (To the Left) by Arabs an d Outrem er (Beyond the Sea) by Crusaders (Shehadeh, 20 11: 26). In all cases, the term was loosely referring to parts of Eastern Mediterran ean. The first tim e the term Syria was officially associated with a territory was under the Ottom an Vilayets System of 18 46 (Choueiri, 198 9: 26) (Celik, 20 13: 70 6). According to an Ottom an m ap printed in 18 93, “Syria” was covering both Vilayet of al-Sham (Dam ascus) an d the Mutasarrifate of al-Quds (J erusalem ). Syria becam e a State under the French Mandate and becam e a sovereign state sin ce 1946.
Co lo n ia lis m a n d th e Fre n c h Ma n d a te
For strategic m ilitary and econom ic reasons, European im perial powers were increasingly interested in the Middle Eastern regions during the nin eteenth century. According to Dietm ar Rotherm un d (20 0 6), European s "wanted to advance their econom ic interests. [And] the openin g of Suez Can al in 18 69 was an im portant even t in this context. The Canal literarily cuts across the Ottom an Em pire and facilitated the spread of European colonialism " (Rotherm un d, 20 0 6: 10 2).
As a colonial rival to the Kingdom of Great Britain, which m anaged to increase its presences in Egypt, the way to its im portant colony of India, the French Em pire, to counterbalan ce this presence, started to seek a foothold in the region. This rivalry however, did not cause a conflict between the British and the French but rather, it resulted in a broad m ulti-level understanding. This had taken a form of signing m any agreem en ts like The Sykes-Picot Agreem ent of 1916, San Rem o Conference of April 1920 an d The Treaty of Sevres of August 1920 . In May 1916, The British represen ts by Mark Sykes and The French represented by François Georges-Picot signed the Asia Minor Agreem ent, which is also better known as Sykes-Picot Agreem ent (1). Basing on these political deals, European colonial powers divided the post-Ottom an East Mediterran ean region into m an y territories. The British and The Fren ch m anaged to have the ultim ate leverage over the region. By settin g borders by those colonial powers, these territories will later on be transform ed into states in a decolonization process.
Sim ultan eously with signs of dissolution of the Ottom an Em pire in early twen tieth century, Syria, which was under the con trol of this em pire, becam e a focal poin t for The French Republic (2). Although it had been Status quo before, France has legally reinforced its ultim ate leverage over
Syria by an official recognition by the League of Nations of its presence in Syria in 1922. The French control over Syria was labeled as M andate, through which The League of Nations, without setting a tim etable, asked the French authorities to "facilitate the progressive developm ent of Syria [an d Lebanon] as indepen dent state[s]” (Yapp, 1996: 8 6).
Throughout the period of the Mandate in Syria, French authorities adopted sectarian-based m easures on a large scale. Man date authorities were keen in dealing with Syria’s differen t religious, ethnic and tribal com ponents as separate sov ereign entities and these authorities had set their policies accordingly. The classical colonial approach of div ide an d rule becam e the m ajor attribute of The Fren ch Mandate. In the Syrian case, this approach has explicitly had its roots in the Fren ch claim s of protectin g m in orities in general and Christians in particular (Khoury, 198 7: 5). On e of the m ajor first steps the Mandate authorities have taken was to divide, where applicable, the Syrian territory into m an y statelets (3). Along with The State of Greater Lebanon and The State of H atay, The State of Syria (including Dam ascus and Aleppo), The Alawite State and The State of J abal Druze were created (Provence, 20 0 5: 50 ). Each of these statelets had its own territory and its own flag. They have been easily created because each statelet’s territory was overwhelm ingly populated by on e hom ogenous [religious] com m unity. Moreover, other m inorities who had not been granted a state like Christians, Kurds, Circassians and Bedouin tribes were still treated on their ethn ic and/ or religious iden tities by the French Mandate authorities. All those m inorities were usually represen ted by their religious, ethnic and tribal leaders like clergym en and sheikhs. This kind of represen tation was prom oted by both parties: m inority leaders an d Mandate authorities. Local leaders were taking advantages of this situation to consolidate their leadership over their groups and the French authorities were m aintaining a continuity of a deep sectarian division am on g the Syrian societies. For exam ple, the French policies prevented the Syrian “Christians who were not hostile to [Syrian patriotic] nationalism ” to be in tegrated in the political life. (White, 20 11: 56).
The roots of such a kin d of represen tation can be traced back to the Ottom an M illet System (4). Mandate authorities and Christian clergym en preferred to continue a M illet-lik e system as a way of dealing with each other. That was because the M illet System gran ted the clergym en not on ly a religious leadership on behalf of their m inorities but also political advantage as they were the sole represen tatives of their groups (White, 20 11: 55-56). It is im portant here to m ention that the local Syrian political power, under the foreign m an date, was n ot totally restricted in the hands of religious, ethnic and tribal leaders. Other individuals like m erchants and urban n otables played significant role in the politics of that tim e. This trend was, however, m uch m ore popular am ong Sunni Arabs. And this can be attributed to different reasons. First, Sunni Arabs were not a m inority, both ethnically and religiously, hen ce their politics could not be easily m anipulated as it happened in side other m inorities. Second, they inhabited in relatively vast geographical space, the fact that did not facilitate building an inner sect-based cen tral stronghold. Third, which is related to the previous reason and is the m ost im portant, is the fact that Syria’s m ost im portant cities at that tim e were locating in the geographical space largely inhabited by Sunnis. The last factor, however, does not necessarily entail that people from other m inorities were not in habited in the Syria cities.
Th e B irth o f N a tio n a lis m s in S yria
Early n ationalist thoughts in Syria started to appear in the Syrian cities by the late of 19th century an d the beginning of the 20th cen tury. These thoughts were probably affected by a series of political developm ents throughout the world. As Anthony D. Sm ith (20 10 : 7) states that nationalism does not appear by arm ed struggle but rather but cultural and intellectual evidences, nationalist sentim en ts in Syria were articulated by in tellectuals like thin kers an d writers (5). Those thinkers according to m any scholars were influenced, in their turn, by n otions of nation-state and nationalism in Europe, which, as m ention ed before, were results of m odernization (Farah, 1963: 144). In addition to the European factor, the rise of Turkish nationalism during the very last period of The Ottom an Em pire (an d Kem alism in The Republic of Turkey), was an other crucial developm en ts in this regard (6). Even tually, the notion of n ationalism in Syria was developed into two directions: Pan Syrianism and Arab Nationalism . H owever, both of them fell victim to the m andate” and process of de-colonialization as the created Syrian state was not fulfilling their political am bitions (Gelvin, 20 11: 215). Nevertheless, Arab n ationalism rem ained the m ost powerful nationalism in the Syrian political scen e since then (7).
A) P a n S yria n is m
Aspects of m odernization in The Ottom an Em pire like the Tanzim at decrees, n ew m arket conditions, standardizin g institutions and attem pting to set norm s for the public and private dom ains increased com m unication between (citizens) of The Ottom an Em pire. Transportation an d m odern technologies further eased this com m unication an d m ade m any social groups to develop social, econ om ic and cultural ties. These ties created a shared social, econom ic and cultural “spaces”. Such spaces, in som e case, contributed in form in g regions like The Greater Syria (Gelvin 20 11: 211) (8 ). According to the m ost influen tial thinker and politician of Pan Syrianism Antun Saadah, Syrians are a com plete n ation and they are not part of larger n ations [Arabs] (Pipes 1990 : 41) (9). Greater Syria gradually becam e a “distinct econom ic unit” an d “a British-built telegraph connected Aleppo, Beirut and Dam ascus” (Gelvin 20 11: 211).
Taking in to consideration Ben edict Anderson (20 0 6: 145) and Karl W. Deutsch’s (Sm ith, 1954: 47) focus on the im portance of com m unication in shaping and m aking nations and J am es L. Gelvin ’s previous com m unicational accoun t, the Greater Syria witnessed the em ergence of what is called Pan Syrianism as a nationalism of that region. Pan Syrianism is a political ideology that sees that the region of the Greater Syria has a nation ; Syrians (10 ). Pan-Syrianism started to flourish by the early twentieth century (Pipes, 1990 : 3). This version of nationalism was concern ed not with an ethnicity or religious but with a geographical zon e so to speak. According to Pan -Syrianists, people of the Greater Syria are eligible to be a nation. This version of nationalism did not identify itself with Arab nationalism (Pipes, 1990 : 41). The key ideological and organizational leader of this nationalism was the Christian Lebanese An tun Saadah, the founder of Syrian Social Nation alist Party, SSPN.
B ) Ara b N a tio n a lis m
Another an d the m ore powerful, version of nationalism dom inated the region of Syria since the late 19th century, was Arab Nationalism . The political con ditions of World War I in gen eral an d the Ottom an Em pire conditions in particular, had encouraged the Arabs to act n ationalistically. Pushed by the British and led by H ussein bin Ali (18 54-1931), Arabs revolted again st the Ottom an rule in 1916 (11). While bein g led by an Arab from H ijaz (today a part of Saudi Arabia), The Arab Revolt, to a great exten t, took place in today’s Syria and other neighboring coun tries. Bin Ali’s offspring like King Faysal settled in Dam ascus and was politically active there. These actions in Dam ascus highly contributed in the spread of Arab Nationalism in Syria. After the in dependence in 1946 and until the union with Egypt in 1958 , Syria witnessed political disorder; series of m ilitary coups were carried out. The first coup took place in March 1949 and a shift happened in the Syrian politics; the traditional elite was som ehow pushed aside and “the tables [were] turn ed on ” it (Chaitani, 20 0 7: 127) (12). Since then and until 1958 , the political power in Syria was in ebb an d flow m ovem ent between traditional elites, Pan -Syrianists, Com m unists and Arab Nationalists, an d all struggled to rule the country.
S yria ’s In d e p e n d e n ce
The last French soldier left Syria on 17 April 1946 and from that date The Republic of Syria was born. Military jun tas ruled Syria from March 1949 to February 1954. Since then and un til the unity with Egypt in 1958 , Syria witn essed dem ocratic parliam entary rule especially by introducin g the secret ballots system as a new electoral technique (Krokowska, 20 11: 8 5).
Arab n ation alists succeeded to overcom e their political opponen ts. Benefiting from the high popularity of Arab nationalism at that tim e in other Arab countries, The Arab Socialist Baath Party in Syria, with its Arab Nationalism ideology, m anaged to becom e the m ain political player in Syria. At that tim e, the Arab nationalist Egyptian president Gam al Abd al-Nasser (1918 -1970 ) was the m ost popular Arab leader and “no other Arab leader approached his status” (Cleveland & Bun ton , 20 13: 291). To overcom e its m ain rival (the Syrian Com m unist Party, SCP), The Baath Party “approached Nasser about a union” (Cleveland & Bunton , 20 13: 30 4). As a result, Egypt and Syria were unified in February 1958 un der The Un ited Arab Republic, UAR which broke up in 1961. During the period of The UAR, dram atic shifts in Syrian politics continued. Fundam entally dom inated by Egypt (Cleveland & Bunton, 20 13: 30 4), UAR has excluded lots Syrian political m ovem en ts. Minorities for exam ple, “nearly disappeared from the four Syrian cabin ets of the UAR years” (Pipes, 1990 : 155).
After the collapse of UAR, the Baath Party regain ed the rule in 1963 by a m ilitary coup carried out by H afez al-Asad (1930 -20 0 0 ) and other Baathist m ilitary officers. Al-Asad however, conducted an inn er coup in his own rulin g party in 1970 and seized the rule alone since that tim e. After the last coup, Syrian politics again dram atically shifted an d entered into a differen t era. Al-Asad has crucially destroyed the urban Sun ni elites, who were big landowners at the sam e tim e, by prom oting land an d property reform s (Pipes, 1990 : 178 ). It can be argued here that al-Asad as com ing from a rural backgroun d, prom oted agricultural an d lan d-owning reform s in the interest of his Alawite sect which its m ajority was villagers. This however was not the case for other Syrian rural com m unities. William L. Cleveland and Martin P. Bunton state that “the m ajority of Syrian peasants rem ain ed lan dless” as a result of these reform s (Cleveland & Bunton, 20 13: 419). Since 1970 an d on, Al-Asad has stren gthened his rule by posing his Alawite and fam ily figures in im portant state institutions. The state under his control was “stifling, in efficient an d oppressive” (Clevelan d & Bunton, 20 13: 420 ). These policies contributed to the inflam in g of "the tradition al sectarian conflict" as Philip S. Khoury puts it (Khoury, 198 7: 5).
According to Nazih N. Ayubi, a strong state should not be hostile to its society. For Ayubi, the Syrian state under al-Asad rule, has n ever been “strong state” but rather it was a “fierce state” (Ayubi, 20 0 6: 447-450 ). Elaboratin g on Ayubi’s argum ent, Toby Dodge says that the Arab state [like Syria] although was “fierce” yet it “lacked the institutional power and political legitim acy to im plem en t govern m ent policy effectively. State intervention in society was often unwelcom e; regarded by the population at best to be a necessary evil an d at worst as an illegitim ate intrusion ” (Dodge, 20 12: 7). That is, although seem ing im m un e again st any risk, the Syrian state was fragile from inside and was ready to collapse and fall apart.
Co n clu s io n
As a political notion, nation alism has extensively been studied by m any sociology, anthropology and history scholars on theoretical bases. Num erous works on nationalism in the fram ework of theory and/ or European case studies have been published. Apart from the dom ain of Arab Nationalism , as a single en tity, on ly few works have been dedicated to the study of nationalism in Syria. Nation alism in Syria should not only be dealt with as a part of Arab Nation alism or as a m odified Arab Nationalism ; in fact, nationalism in Syria used to be m uch m ore diverse an d com plex.
Syria used to have two m ain tren ds of nationalism s; Pan Syrianism and Arab Nationalism . While the Pan Syrianist thought em erged due to territorial conditions, Arab Nationalism was highly stim ulated by external dyn am ics like the World War I an d the collapse of The Ottom an Em pire. Benefiting from the m om entum of Arab Nationalist thoughts in 1950 s, The Baath Party elim in ated all its rival and m an aged to seize the power in Syria since 1963. Under the Baathist H afez al-Asad rule, Arab Nationalism becam e a m ere façade that cover al-Asad fam ily authoritarian rule. It is im portant here to notice that not a specific version of nationalism , but rather the non-dem ocratic way of governing and state m an agem ent led to such an authoritarianism .
N o te s
1) The Sykes-Picot Agreem ent has been signed secretly. After the fall of the Tsar of Russia, whom his governm en t partially involved in the agreem ent, the Bolsheviks exposed the version of the agreem ent which they have found in the Russian archive. The first reference in English to the Sykes-Picot agreem en t, was by The Manchester Guardian 26 Novem ber 1917. See <http:/ / goo.gl/ uoYN2W>
2) From 18 52 to 18 70 Fran ce’s official nam e was The [Second] French Em pire. From 18 70 -1940 it was called The French [Third] Republic.
3) At early twentieth cen tury, Syria was a com m on nam e for today’s Syrian Arab Republic, State of Lebanon and Turkey’s province of H atay.
4) “Millet” is a Turkish term m eaning “com m unity” or sim ply “people”. Ottom an Millets used to be used to refer to non -Muslim m inorities who lived in the Ottom an Em pire.
5) This was the case for both Pan Syrianism and Arab Nation alism (Shlaim , 20 0 3) (Groiss 20 11: 41-44) (H ajjar 20 11: 18 2).
6) As far as Arab Nationalism is concern ed, another factor can be added here; colonial powers, especially The Great Britain had an influential role in provoking Arab n ationslim against The Ottom an rule. See n ote 11.
7) According to Daniel Pipes, Pan Syrianism was not successful because, as being a secularist and led by Christians, it failed to attract Sunni Muslim s who form the m ajority of Syrian people (Pipes 1990 : 43).
8 ) Greater Syria is a geographical term that refers to today’s Syria, Lebanon, J ordan, Israel and Palestinian Territories. It also contains Sanjak of Alexan dretta (H atay Province in The Republic of Turkey).
9) Antun Saadeh was born in 190 4 and executed by the Leban ese authorities in 1949. “Syria for Syrians and Syrians are a com plete nation” is the first concepts in Explanations of Principles of The Syrian Social Nation alist Party written by Saadeh him self
10 ) Som e argue that Pan -Syrianism used to be headed by Christian figure like Butrus al-Bustani and Saadeh. They argue that Pan Syrian ism was prom oted by Christians to preven t Sun n i Arabs and their nationalism (Arab Nationalism ) to dom inate the Syrian political scene (Pipes, 1990 : 41-42).
11) H enry McMahon, British H igh Com m ission er in Egypt had prom ised H ussein bin Ali, the leader of The Arab Revolt (1914-1916) that the British will support the Arab independence from the Ottom an Em pire. This was don e through a series of letters between the two parts known as McMahon– H ussein Correspondence.
12) The m ilitary coup has been conducted by H usni al-Zaim on 30 March 1949. Som e argum ents relate this coup, am ong other reasons, to the Am erican role in TAPLINE Project (The Trans-Arabian Pipelin e) of 1946. This was a pipeline in tended to carry oil from the Arabian Am erican Oil Com pany, Aram co in Saudi Arabia to the Mediterranean cost of Lebanon passin g through J ordan an d Syria. Youssef Chaitani states that “the Syrians [on the contrary to Am ericans] were not enthusiastic” to the project and m ade m any excuses to avoid signing the Pipeline Convention (Chaitani, 20 0 7: 74). Al-Zaim , however, after seizing the power, has swiftly ratified the TAPLINE project (Chaitani, 20 0 7: 132).
Re fe re n ce s :
1. Ayubi, N 20 0 6, Ov er-Stating the Arab State: Politics and Society in the M iddle East, I. B. Tauris, London.
2. Celik, K 20 13, “The End of 19. Century and the Beginnin g of the 20 . Century Foreign Trade in Syria”, Journal of H istory School (JOH S), no. XVI, pp.70 5– 38 .
3. Chaitani, Y 20 0 7, Post-Colon ial Sy ria and Lebanon: The Decline of Arab N ation alism and the Trium ph of the State, I. B. Tauris.
4. Choueiri, Y 198 9, Arab H istory and the N ation -State: A Study in M odern Arab H istography 18 20 -198 0, Routledge.
5. Cleveland, W & Bunton , M 20 13, a H istory of the M odern M iddle East, Westview Press. 6. Dodge, T 20 12, from the “Arab Aw akening” to the Arab Spring; the Post-Colon ial State in the M iddle East, London School of Econom ics, (28 April 20 15 http:/ / www.lse.ac.uk/ IDEAS/ publications/ reports/ pdf/ SR0 11/ FINAL_ LSE_ IDEAS_ _ from TheAr abAwakenin gToTheArabSpring_ Dodge.pdf).
7. Farah, C 1963, “The Dilem m a of Arab Nationalism ”, Die W elt Des Islam s, N ew Series vol. 8 , no. 3 pp. 140 – 64.
8 . Gelvin, J 20 11, The M odern M iddle East: A H istory, 3rd edn , Oxford University Press. 9. Groiss, A 20 11, “Com m unalism as a Factor in the Rise of the Syria Idea in the 18 0 0 s and the Early 190 0 s”, In The Origins of Sy rian N ationhood: H istories, Pioneers an d Identity, edited by Adel Beshara, Routledge, pp. 30 – 54.
10 . H ajjar, N 20 11, “Between Patriotism and Nationalism : Am een Rihani’s Vision for Lebanon an d Syria”, In the Origin s of Sy rian N ation hood: H istories, Pion eers and Identity, Routledge, pp. 163– 8 9.
11. Khoury, P 198 7, Sy ria and the Fren ch M andate: The Politics of Arab N ationalism 1920 -1945, Princeton University Press.
12. Krokowska, K 20 11, “The Fall of Dem ocracy in Syria”, Perceptions vol. XVI, n o. 2. pp. 8 1– 98 .
13. Pipes, D 1990 , Greater Sy ria : The H istory of an Am bition, Oxford University Press. 14. Provence, M 20 0 5, the Great Sy rian R ev olt and the Rise of Arab N ation alism, University of Texas Press.
15. Rotherm un d, D 20 0 6, the R outledge Com pan ion to Decolon ization, Routledge.
16. Saadeh, A, Explan ation s of Principles of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party, (12 May 20 15), <http:/ / www.ssn p.com / n ew/ library/ saadeh/ principles/
17. Shehadeh, L 20 11,“The Nam e of Syria in Ancient and Modern Usage”, In The Origin s of Sy rian N ationhood: H istories, Pioneers an d Identity, edited by Adel Beshara, Routledge, pp. 17– 29.
18 . Shlaim , A 20 0 3, “Review: Arab Nationalism in the 20 th Cen tury by Adeed Dawisha”, The Guardian, viewed 28 April 20 15, http:/ / www.theguardian .com / books/ 20 0 3 / m ar/ 29 / featuresreviews.guardianreview>.
19. Sm ith, A 20 10 , N ationalism. 2nd edn, Polity Press.
20 . White, B 20 11, the Em ergence of M in orities in the M iddle East: The Politics of Com m un ity in French M andate Sy ria, Edinburgh University Press.
21. Yapp, M 1996, the N ear East sin ce the First W orld W ar: A H istory to 1995, Pearson , New York.
