690D.11241/33
The Consul at Beirut (Steger) to the
Secretary of State
No. 1025
Beirut, January 11, 1936.
[Received
February 10.]
Sir: I have the honor to refer to despatches
Nos. 226120 and 2301,
dated respectively October 26 and November 9, 1935, from the American
Embassy at Paris, reporting the results of representations made to the
French Foreign Office regarding the unilateral denial to American
philanthropic and educational institutions in French Mandated territory
of privileges previously assured by agreement between the American and
French Governments.
From these two despatches it is noted that, although a note of the French
Ministry of Foreign Affairs under date of November 8th invites the
American Embassy to enter into an exchange of views for the purpose of
reaching a new agreement, an official of the Ministry has verbally
suggested that the conversations be postponed pending further
consideration of the situation by the French High Commissioner at
Beirut, and discussions between him and the representatives of American
missions in this country.
I now have the honor to enclose a memorandum of a conversation which I
had yesterday with M. Kieffer, Chief of the Political Bureau of the High
Commission. It will be seen that, although the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs duly transmitted to the French High Commissioner the suggestion
that he initiate negotiations here, the latter has definitely declined
to take any such action.
My opinions as to the general situation, based on local observations and
frequent discussion with competent officials of the French High
Commission, have been duly communicated to the Department in previous
despatches. I now feel it incumbent upon me to express the opinion that
the officials of the High Commission, and possibly also those of the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs at Paris, are deliberately evading the
issue. They realize that their legal position is weak; however, the
provisions of Arrêté No. 292/LR of December 20,
1934, constitute a fait accompli, and the High
Commission has every interest in postponing, rather than in meeting, the
issue.
It is my understanding that the Department takes the attitude that the
provisions of Arrêté No. 292/LR, being in
contravention of treaty rights, are inapplicable to American
institutions, and that, pending the consent of the American Government
to eventual modifications, the rights formerly enjoyed by these
institutions continue
[Page 473]
to exist
unimpaired. I am inclined to believe that if the Department should
insist strongly upon practical recognition of this legal situation, the
French Government would find in this insistence an incentive for
altering its present policy of procrastination.
Respectfully yours,
[Enclosure]
Memorandum by the Consul at Beirut (Steger)
I called this morning on M. Kieffer, Chief of the Political Bureau of
the French High Commission, and inquired if the High Commission had
received recommendations of the French Foreign Office to the effect
that the High Commissioner initiate conversations with
representatives of the American missions in this country, with a
view to adjusting the differences which had arisen as a result of
the application of the High Commissioner’s Decree No. 292/LR of
December 20, 1934, limiting the customs privileges enjoyed by
philanthropic and educational institutions.
M. Kieffer replied that the High Commissioner had received such
recommendations from the Foreign Office, but had interpreted them to
mean that the initiative for such conversations should come from the
American interests concerned; and that he had recently replied to
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, stating that no one had approached
the High Commission on the subject.
I replied that his evaluation of the position appeared to be at
variance with my own and with my understanding of the position of
the American Government; that the position of the State Department
was that an international agreement had been arbitrarily altered by
the Mandatory authorities without the consent of the American
Government, and that, until the consent of the American Government
should have been obtained, the terms of the assurances previously
given by the French Government must be considered as being still in
force. Such being the case, I added, the French authorities, if they
desired to effect a change in the legal situation could hardly
expect that the American Government should take the initiative by
proposing a reduction of privileges guaranteed to American
institutions by the existing agreement. It was rather, I stated, the
Mandatory authorities who should act with a view to ascertaining
whether the Government of the United States were willing to recede
from the position taken in my note of January 25, 1935.
From this point the conversation turned to the more general question
of the right of the French High Commission to withdraw the
privileges previously agreed upon between the two Governments.
[Page 474]
From M. Kieffer’s
statements it appears that the chief, if not the only argument in
legal justification of the stand of the High Commission is that
advanced in paragraphs 6 to 9 of the High Commission’s note of May
8, 1935. (My comment on the argument will be found in paragraphs 8
and 9, page 3, of my despatch No. 887 of May 25, 1935.) M. Kieffer,
while admitting that the French Foreign Office, in its note of March
10, 1931, accepted the contention of the American Government that
the franchise granted to the institutions should be unlimited, now
argues that the French Government, while bound under the terms of
the Mandate to preserve privileges enjoyed by foreigners under the
Ottoman régime, had no right to grant an extension of those
privileges. According to this argument, the assurances given in
1931, being contrary to the terms and the spirit of the Mandate,
must be considered as null and void.
Aside from this legal argument, the only justification advanced is
that of expediency. In connection with this point, I merely repeated
to M. Kieffer my previous statement that the American Government had
expressed its willingness to give sympathetic consideration to the
views of the Mandatory authorities, but that it still held to its
standpoint that any modification of existing American rights must
result from an agreement between the two parties rather than from
unilateral action.
M. Kieffer then, reverting to my former statement that discussions of
possible modifications should be initiated by the High Commission,
promised to discuss the matter again with the French High
Commissioner and to inform me of the results.
C. T. Steger
Beirut, January 10,
1936.
