Documents Refute Israeli Claims that Ex-Syrian PM Jamil Mardam Bey Was ‘Double Agent’

President Shukri al-Quwatli (L) and former Syrian PM Jamil Mardam Bey.
President Shukri al-Quwatli (L) and former Syrian PM Jamil Mardam Bey.
TT
20

Documents Refute Israeli Claims that Ex-Syrian PM Jamil Mardam Bey Was ‘Double Agent’

President Shukri al-Quwatli (L) and former Syrian PM Jamil Mardam Bey.
President Shukri al-Quwatli (L) and former Syrian PM Jamil Mardam Bey.

Israeli media published last month an article alleging that former Syrian Prime Minister Jamil Mardam Bey was a “double agent” who worked for France, Britain and Israel.

Author and Israeli researcher Meir Zamir claimed that he had discovered a trove of documents from the French archive that prove that Mardam Bey was double agent. The official served in office in the 1930s and 1940s and is among the most prominent Syrian national figures.

The article was published without verifying the claims. Those adept at academic research will notice that the “damning evidence” alleged by Zamir were not documented. The very article in which he presented his claims does not merit being described as a serious study of history.

Perhaps it did not occur to Zamir that Mardam Bey was one of the few Arab figures to have preserved all his personal documents. Indeed, he had left at his Cairo home more than 10,000 documents on significant developments that took place during his term as finance, former affairs and defense minister and then prime minister. He kept every personal or official document. He was supposed to hand them over to the Syrian state archive, but after witnessing the tumult in his country, he chose to keep them.

After his death, his family sought that the documents be placed in the possession of the Syrian people. It therefore tasked me with this mission. I worked with a specialized archive center to organize them in a professional manner. They have since been digitized and will soon be available for access to historians.

The documents include minutes of meetings, correspondence, speeches, journal entries and reports on official visits or political analyses. Mardam Bey also used to write his own notes by hand to comment on an issue or a significant event.

Zamir deliberately sought to tarnish Mardam Bey’s reputation. The Syrian official is known throughout the Arab world as a national figure, who was skilled at diplomacy. He is known for his contributions to the liberation of Arab lands from colonization and had waged fierce political battles for Syria’s independence.

The majority of correspondence between Mardam Bey and British government representatives reveal a strong relationship he had forged with the then world power. Ahead of World War II, its army was protecting the Middle East against the German army and the Nazi regime. France, meanwhile, had surrendered to the Nazis. Its resistance leader Charles de Gaulle had sought refuge in London where he launched the movement against the Nazis.

Alleged ‘double agent’
On Zamir’s claims of Mardam Bey’s collaboration with the French that he had alleged to have found in the French archive, developments on the ground refute these claims. France had vowed to recognize Syria as an independent state in 1941. The Syrian Republic, as it was then known, then became a member of the United Nations and Paris slowly began to back down from its pledge. It began to exert pressure on Syrian officials to agree to the deployment of special forces under French command. Mardam Bey, as defense minister in 1945, categorially rejected the proposal and accused the French of seeking to deprive Syria of a national army.

How could Mardam Bey be an agent to French when de Gaulle wrote in his journals that the British were conspiring with the Syrians to kick France out of Syria? Mardam Bey had turned into a fierce enemy of the French so much so that French General Delegate to Syria Étienne Paul-Émile-Marie Beynet had spoken of how he had lost faith in him and other Syrian national leaders. He even stated that they should be replaced by men who had previously cooperated with Paris.

Mardam Bey and his nationalist colleagues were unfortunate to find themselves alone in confronting France’s coercions. A report on a meeting with British officials showed their rejection of France’s pressure and threats. They promised Mardam Bey that Britain will wield its influence to ensure that negotiations with the French would be smooth and transparent. However, Britain soon changed its position when France was again declared an independent nation after it was liberated from the Nazis in 1944. As an independent country, Britain could no longer exert pressure on France and so the Syrians were on their own.

Of course, the British did not want to help the Syrians achieve independence without a price. They sought for Syria to become part of the Hashemite Kingdom, in what Mardam Bey would describe as “British deceit and double standards.”

Mercurial man
The British soon grew annoyed with Mardam Bey, whom they described as the “mercurial” foreign minister. They completely turned against him over his perceived hardline stance against the French. The loss of trust was mutual. Several documents from the British foreign ministry showed that officials had sought on several occasions to sidestep Mardam Bey and approach the president and prime minister without referring to him first.

Tensions between the Syrian and French leaders reached their peak in 1945 when France carried out a barbaric air raid against state buildings in Damascus, including the parliament. The foreign ministry was struck in an attempt against Mardam Bey’s life after he had delivered a strongly-worded address at parliament where he attacked the French and threatened to disclose documents that expose the British and the pressure they exerted on the Syrians to accept the French terms.

What sort of agent would openly attack and threaten world powers? How would he not fear that they would expose his role as an agent? Had Mardam Bey indeed been a “double agent”, where are the favors that he offered the French, British or Zionists, who had initially admired his diplomatic skills, but soon turned on him when he started to use these skills against their interests?



Sudan's Relentless War: A 70-Year Cycle of Conflict


Army chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan (left) and RSF leader Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti, pictured during their alliance to oust Omar al-Bashir in 2019 (AFP)
Army chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan (left) and RSF leader Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti, pictured during their alliance to oust Omar al-Bashir in 2019 (AFP)
TT
20

Sudan's Relentless War: A 70-Year Cycle of Conflict


Army chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan (left) and RSF leader Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti, pictured during their alliance to oust Omar al-Bashir in 2019 (AFP)
Army chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan (left) and RSF leader Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti, pictured during their alliance to oust Omar al-Bashir in 2019 (AFP)

While world conflicts dominate headlines, Sudan’s deepening catastrophe is unfolding largely out of sight; a brutal war that has killed tens of thousands, displaced millions, and flattened entire cities and regions.

More than a year into the conflict, some observers question whether the international community has grown weary of Sudan’s seemingly endless cycles of violence. The country has endured nearly seven decades of civil war, and what is happening now is not an exception, but the latest chapter in a bloody history of rebellion and collapse.

The first of Sudan’s modern wars began even before the country gained independence from Britain. In 1955, army officer Joseph Lagu led the southern “Anyanya” rebellion, named after a venomous snake, launching a guerrilla war that would last until 1972.

A peace agreement brokered by the World Council of Churches and Ethiopia’s late Emperor Haile Selassie ended that conflict with the signing of the Addis Ababa Accord.

But peace proved short-lived. In 1983, then-president Jaafar Nimeiry reignited tensions by announcing the imposition of Islamic Sharia law, known as the “September Laws.” The move prompted the rise of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM), led by John Garang, and a renewed southern insurgency that raged for more than two decades, outliving Nimeiry’s regime.

Under Omar al-Bashir, who seized power in a 1989 military coup, the war took on an Islamist tone. His government declared “jihad” and mobilized civilians in support of the fight, but failed to secure a decisive victory.

The conflict eventually gave way to the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement, better known as the Naivasha Agreement, which was brokered in Kenya and granted South Sudan the right to self-determination.

In 2011, more than 95% of South Sudanese voted to break away from Sudan, giving birth to the world’s newest country, the Republic of South Sudan. The secession marked the culmination of decades of war, which began with demands for a federal system and ended in full-scale conflict. The cost: over 2 million lives lost, and a once-unified nation split in two.

But even before South Sudan’s independence became reality, another brutal conflict had erupted in Sudan’s western Darfur region in 2003. Armed rebel groups from the region took up arms against the central government, accusing it of marginalization and neglect. What followed was a ferocious counterinsurgency campaign that drew global condemnation and triggered a major humanitarian crisis.

As violence escalated, the United Nations deployed one of its largest-ever peacekeeping missions, the African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur (UNAMID), in a bid to stem the bloodshed.

Despite multiple peace deals, including the Juba Agreement signed in October 2020 following the ousting of long-time Islamist ruler, Bashir, fighting never truly ceased.

The Darfur war alone left more than 300,000 people dead and millions displaced. The International Criminal Court charged Bashir and several top officials, including Ahmed Haroun and Abdel Raheem Muhammad Hussein, with war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Alongside the southern conflict, yet another war erupted in 2011, this time in the Nuba Mountains of South Kordofan and the Blue Nile region. The fighting was led by Abdelaziz al-Hilu, head of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement–North (SPLM–N), a group composed largely of northern fighters who had sided with the South during the earlier civil war under John Garang.

The conflict broke out following contested elections marred by allegations of fraud, and Khartoum’s refusal to implement key provisions of the 2005 Naivasha Agreement, particularly those related to “popular consultations” in the two regions. More than a decade later, war still grips both areas, with no lasting resolution in sight.

Then came April 15, 2023. A fresh war exploded, this time in the heart of the capital, Khartoum, pitting the Sudanese Armed Forces against the powerful paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF). Now entering its third year, the conflict shows no signs of abating.

According to international reports, the war has killed more than 150,000 people and displaced around 13 million, the largest internal displacement crisis on the planet. Over 3 million Sudanese have fled to neighboring countries.

Large swathes of the capital lie in ruins, and entire states have been devastated. With Khartoum no longer viable as a seat of power, the government and military leadership have relocated to the Red Sea city of Port Sudan.

Unlike previous wars, Sudan’s current conflict has no real audience. Global pressure on the warring factions has been minimal. Media coverage is sparse. And despite warnings from the United Nations describing the crisis as “the world’s worst humanitarian catastrophe,” Sudan's descent into chaos remains largely ignored by the international community.