France’s rival and Mandatory neighbor, Britain, comes to its aid in putting down the Great Syrian Revolt of the 1920s.

‘The Imperialist United Front against Syria’ by Joseph Berger from International Press Correspondence. Vol. 7 No. 45. August 4, 1927.

It is characteristic of the colonial adventures of the imperialists during the present epoch that the suppression of the movement for emancipation among the peoples has become exceedingly laborious and costly. The colonial peoples are extremely tenacious in their resistance, so that even armies equipped with the most up-to-date weapons, and much superior in every respect to the forces of the insurgents, are unable to make headway for months and years. The French have had this experience in Syria. On 24th July 1927 it will be two years since the Sultan Pascha el-Atrasch, with a small band of Druses, revolted against the French, and up to the present the French, despite numerous troops and continual efforts, have not succeeded in finally crushing the rebels.

The military operations of the rebels, however, came to an end some weeks ago, and their last divisions have been obliged to withdraw from Syria. But this is not so much due to the ability of the French generals as to the British intervention.

From the beginning of the insurrection onwards, the British followed a policy of “loyal neutrality” towards the rebels. With the object of doing as much damage as possible to their French rivals in the Near East, the British authorities expressed their sympathy with the rebels, granted them right of asylum in the British mandate territory, and undertook action against them only when obliged to do so by urgent representations by the French. This “neutrality” was not merely dictated by the wish to discredit France, but by the anxiety to avoid provoking risings in the Arabian district under British dominion. As the whole attention of the Arabian national revolutionary movement has been concentrated on the Syrian insurrection, peace has reigned in the British territory.

A change has, however, been observable in British policy for some time. It became necessary to gain French agreement to joint action in various spheres of British interest (China, Egypt); and there is no doubt that one of the conditions imposed by the French minister for Foreign Affairs, in return for Franco-British co-operation, has been the united front for the suppression of the Arab national movement. Great Britain has also made skillful use of its opportunities during the last two years for the improvement of its position in Palestine (by splitting up the national movement) and in Transjordania (by pushing forward Emir Abdallah and his clique), that it need no longer fear a rebellion on its own territory through the agency of the revolutionary Druses.

The Syrian revolutionists concentrated in El-Asrak and on the El-Safa-Plateau were in a very difficult position: The French were successful in bribing some of the subordinate leaders of the Druses into betraying their countrymen. At the same time they stopped up the springs, so that the rebels were unable to obtain water. Then came the British attack in the rear. Threatened by threefold dangers; treason, death from thirst, and the British attack, the rebels retreated to Kiriat el Malh (desert country in the elevated districts of Ibn Saoud). The Supreme Council of the rebels has decided to await here the development of events in Syria.

The Syrian revolutionists, in their proclamations, lay special emphasis on the fact that though the British intervention has forced them to retreat, the Syrian revolution has by no means been thereby stamped out. During the rebellion the French mandatory government made many promises in the event of the cessation of the struggle. This eventuality has now come about. And now it is up to the French Head Commissary to carry out his obligations– the granting a general amnesty, the convocation of the Constitutional Assembly, the establishment of Syrian unity–within the immediate future. What has been done so far– a partial amnesty for the deported political prisoners and the repeal of martial law in Damascus–is entirely inadequate.

Should, however, the French government again break its word, and should it again, rendered confident by the fact that, with the aid of British bayonets, Sultan el-Atrasch and his followers have been driven into the desert and that the French generals are masters in Damascus and Jebel Drus, attempt to carry on a policy of the “strong hand”, instead of granting concessions to the Syrian nationalists, then the inevitable result will be the reawakening of the revolutionary forces of Syria.

Although the Syrian revolutionists have suffered a military defeat, their two years of heroic struggle against the military power of French imperialism, which was then aided by the British, remains a shining example of heroism and determination to the whole Arab population, and enriches them by many experiences invaluable to them in their further struggles for national emancipation.

International Press Correspondence, widely known as”Inprecorr” was published by the Executive Committee of the Communist International (ECCI) regularly in German and English, occasionally in many other languages, beginning in 1921 and lasting in English until 1938. Inprecorr’s role was to supply translated articles to the English-speaking press of the International from the Comintern’s different sections, as well as news and statements from the ECCI. Many ‘Daily Worker’ and ‘Communist’ articles originated in Inprecorr, and it also published articles by American comrades for use in other countries. It was published at least weekly, and often thrice weekly.

PDF of full issue: https://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/inprecor/1927/v07n45-aug-04-1927-inprecor-op.pdf