King_Crane_Commission

“The Central recommendations of the King-Crane commission represent an intelligent attempt to create new political units with sturdier institutions than those of the collapsed Ottoman Empire and free from European exploitation.” Discuss in the light of your own reading of the document. In the aftermath of World War 1, at the Paris Peace Conference, President Woodrow Wilson proposed that an Inter-Allied Commission visit Syria in order to gauge what its citizens desired (e.g. their opinions on its independence or unity) and report back to the peace conference with their findings and recommendations. Wilson appointed Dr. Henry Churchill King, president of Oberlin College, and Charles R. Crane, Chicago businessman and trustee of Robert College in Constantinople as the US representatives. The French, however, refused to appoint any representatives and although the British named theirs, they too eventually withdrew, leaving only US representation on the commission. The commission, which became known as the King-Crane Commission, was charged with the responsibility of finding out what the people of Syria wanted by following the doctrine of national self-determination and not on the basis of material interest or advantage to an exterior influence. However, one has to question whether or not the Commission managed to act with just the benefit of the people of Syria in mind, without taking into consideration the desires of the West as regards the future of the newly formed state. Is it possible that during their short visit, the Commission succeeded in understanding the people of Syria enough to competently compile a list of recommendations based solely on their needs and wants' I would like to start off by questioning whether the recommendations of the King-Crane commission present to us an “intelligent attempt” to better the lives of the people of Syria. It cannot be denied that this document is full of good intentions. They begin the document by firmly expressing the fact that Syria will not be ruled under “a colonizing Power in the old sense of that term”, but instead by “a Mandatary under the League of Nations” (Document, p1) which has only the citizens’ interests in mind. Throughout the first section, they encourage and promote the rights of the minority, religious liberty and warn against the possibility of the state becoming financially dependent on their Mandatary. Indeed, the good intentions of King and Crane are apparent continually in each section of their recommendations: in section B, they advocate unity rather than division for the state of Syria and towards the end of the document seem to consider above all the benefits of the citizens of Syria in deciding a suitable mandate for the country. Furthermore, the section which seems to most illustrate the promotion of the interests of the majority of the Syrian people and not of those in the West is the one which deals with Zionism. Considering the time in which these recommendations were made, after the Balfour Declaration etc., it is significant that the King-Crane commission actually advise a limit to the aims of the more extreme within the Zionist movement. They argue that to ignore the “emphatic opposition of the non-Jewish majority – ninth-tenths of the total population – would constitute a flagrant violation of the principle of self-determination” (Snetsinger, “Truman, the Jewish Vote and the Creation of Israel”, p64). They dispute that the so-called Jewish claim to Palestine “can hardly be seriously considered” (Document, p6) and go further in saying that both Christians and Muslims alike share in that religious claim to the Holy Land. This argument, more than anything else in the document, shows that whatever its other faults, the recommendations to have good intentions at its core. Having the intent of the document established, it is necessary to question the intelligence of these recommendations as even the best intentions can fail, if poorly executed or thought out. Although in parts, the intent of King and Crane’s recommendations may be admirable, I cannot agree that the document is an altogether intelligent attempt at creating new political units with stronger institutions than those of the Ottoman Empire. From the beginning of the document, there is a patronising tone and a condescending attitude towards the Syrian people, even if it may be well meaning. There is no doubt an attempt made to create new and improved political units for the citizens of the newly formed state, but they seem to lack intelligence and understanding of the people they are trying to help. For example, in the first section of the Recommendations, in which King and Crane deal with the installation of institutions for the new democratic state, the language used is quite superior: “The Mandatary should definitely seek, from the beginning of its trusteeship, to train the Syrian people to independent self-government as rapidly as conditions allow, by setting up all the institutions of a democratic state, and by sharing with them increasingly the work of administration, and so forming gradually an intelligent citizenship, interested unselfishly in the progress of the country, and forming at the same time a large group of disciplined civil servants” (Document, p1). Apart from the condescending attitude throughout the document, there seems to be a clear lack of understanding of the different cultures, especially of Islam, in the recommendations. They seem so determined in their quest to bring unity to Syria that they seem to disregard important factors and contradict themselves. A good example of this would be in relation to the issue of Lebanon. In Section B, where King and Crane are recommending that “the unity of Syria be preserved, in accordance with the earnest petition of the great majority of the people of-Syria”(Document, p2), they want to include Lebanon in this new unified state. However, when one considers that, as a country that has achieved a certain autonomy and prosperity within the Turkish Empire, it hardly seems plausible to just lump it in with this new state that would be under foreign control for the foreseeable future. Furthermore, at the end of the document, it is said that if France should be discontent with their recommendations, then it would be possible “to give her a mandate over the Lebanon (not enlarged) separated from the rest of Syria” (Document, p10), which completely undermines any good intentions which might have been expressed throughout. Overall, there may be some admirable aims in this document but they often seem to be naive and lacking in understanding and thought. The second part of the statement claims that these recommendations would guarantee a democratic Syrian state which would be free from European exploitation. Although King and Crane express emphatically from the beginning of the document that the mandate would not be a colonizing power, there are many other factors that indicate Western influence and exploitation in Syria. In the first section of the document, it is advised that new, Western political “institutions of a democratic state” should be imposed on the country by their mandate so as to form an “intelligent citizenship” and a “large group of disciplined civil servants”. In the same section, they also discuss “the imperative necessity of education for the citizens of a democratic state, and for the development of a sound national spirit” (Document, p1). Further on in the document, Emir Feisal is put forward as the best candidate for the position of rule in the “constitutional monarchy along democratic lines” (Document, p4) and he just happens to be the same person whom the British support for the position. When one takes this all into consideration and reads between the lines somewhat, it seems that Syria will not be a state which is free from European influence or exploitation. It can not be denied that the recommendations are advising to impose democracy, a thoroughly Western concept, and the fact that the mandate will be imposing institutions which work in their country confirms the ‘we know what’s best for you’ attitude which is prevalent throughout. Furthermore, King and Crane are very vague in relation to the “limited term” which shall be required in order for the mandate to ensure the success of the new state. It would seem that they advise the time of expiration to be decided by the League of Nations. However, they will be basing their decision on “annual reports of the Mandatary to the League” which seems to suggest that the Mandatary power will be able to remain until its own reports show that it can withdraw successfully. This surely indicates that there shall be at least room for exploitation, even if it does not express so directly. In other words, “the mandates actually masked the spread of the very sort of empire that Wilson was supposed to oppose” (Davidson, “The past as prelude: Zionism and the betrayal of American Democratic Principles, 1917-48”, Journal of Palestine Studies 31, 2002, p23). It may not be as obvious as the old way of imperialistic colonization, but it seems to be a new method of subtlety gaining power and influence over a country – exploitation in the disguise of aid perhaps. In conclusion, I would have to disagree with the above statement. Although there may be some good intentions expressed in this document, they are very often poorly thought out and quite idealistic in content. Furthermore, the concept of an external mandate establishing the state makes it hard to believe that it shall be ruled unselfishly and free from Western exploitation. Bilbliography: Recommendations of the King-Crane Commission Document Davidson, Lawrence , “The past as prelude: Zionism and the betrayal of American Democratic Principles, 1917-48, Journal of Palestine Studies, 31, 2002 Snetsinger, John, “Truman, the Jewish Vote and the Creation of Israel”, Hoover Institution Press, Stanford University, 1974 Word Count: 1485