Colonial Legacies in Syrian Nationality Law HISTORICAL CONTEXT: EUROPEAN COLONIALISM AND THE FORMATION OF SYRIA AS A MODERN STATE A The Dislocation of the Ottoman Empire and Creation of Artificial Nationalities In order to understand the current rules governing Syrian citizenship, it is necessary to trace back the historical formation of Syria as a nation-state. After the fall of the Ottoman Empire, Britain and France instituted a system of ‘Mandates’ in order to maintain their control over the Fertile Crescent. 28 Under this system, which was approved by the League of Nations, ‘Mandatory’ powers were in charge of ‘assisting’ native peoples who were ‘not able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world’. 29 The Allies deemed that this system of tutelage was the appropriate solution for what they regarded as ‘politically backward people’ incapable of governing themselves. 30 The occupation of Syria was based on a colonial organisation and imperial discourse that saw native populations in the Middle East as inferior, uncivilised and incapable of administrating themselves. The former French Prime Minister Alexandre Millerand declared in 1919 that France had ‘a sacred duty’ to help Syrians ‘realise their legitimate aspirations’ and ‘organise themselves as nations’. 31 Yet, when the Syrian people issued a declaration of independence in 1920, and created a sovereign State based on principles of democracy and equality, the Anglo–French Alliance forcibly crushed them down, and forced their political leaders to exile. By doing this, Elizabeth F Thompson claims that ‘Europeans stole Arab democracy and expelled Syria from the so-called civilised world’. 32 As a result, the paternalist discourse that sought to justify European occupation, on the basis of a duty to so-called ‘assist’ native populations in ‘governing themselves’ was a fallacy aimed at disguising colonialism. Although the League of Nations expressly stated in its declaration that the Mandatory power shall ‘encourage local autonomy’ and ‘take into account the rights, interests and wishes of the population’, 33 France treated its possessions in the Levant as part of its colonial empire. 34 The brutality of French colonial rule in Syria proved that France never sought to bring autonomy to native populations. In fact, France took de facto control over Syria in 1918–19, but the League of Nations established the Mandates System only three years later. Therefore, the System of Mandates provided a legal formula for colonisation and the League of Nations had 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 This division was agreed during the Anglo–French Conference of San Remo, in April 1920. See David Kenneth Fieldhouse, Western Imperialism in the Middle East 1914–1958 (Oxford University Press 2006) 36–41. Treaty of Peace between the Allied and Associated Powers and Germany, signed 28 June 19191, 225 ConTS 188 (entered into force 10 January 1920) art 22(1) (‘Covenant of the League of Nations’). Quincy Wright, ‘The United States and the Mandates’ (1925) 23(7) Michigan Law Review 722. Safiuddin Joarder, Syria under the French Mandate: The Early Phase 1920–1927 (Asiatic Society of Bangladesh Publications, 1977) iv. Thompson, How the West Stole Democracy (n 16) xiii. ‘Annex 391a: French Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon’ (1922) 3(8) League of Nations Official Journal 1013, 1013–17. Joarder (n 31) iv. 11