Foreign Relations of the United States Diplomatic Papers, 1938, The British Commonwealth, Europe, Near East, and Africa, Volume II

890D.01/467a

The Chief of the Division of Near Eastern Affairs (Murray) to the Ambassador in France (Bullitt)

Washington, January 13, 1938.

Dear Mr. Ambassador: In an instruction No. 1440 of August 4, 1936,⁴ the Department requested the Embassy to bring to the attention of the French Government our interest in the forthcoming termination of the mandate in Syria and the Lebanon, and to inquire what arrangements were contemplated for consultation with the United States in respect to the conditions under which the territories were to be administered upon the cessation of the mandatory regime. The Embassy under date of August 27, 1936,⁵ reported that it had taken up this matter with the Chief of the Africa-Levant section of the Foreign Office, and forwarded a copy of a memorandum from the Foreign Office setting forth the French position with respect to the treaties then to be concluded with Syria and the Lebanon. The Foreign Office, however, apparently did not go into the question of consultation with the United States, and we were inclined to feel at the time that it had treated the underlying issues rather inadequately.

As you know, it is proposed that Syria and the Lebanon shall become independent countries on January 1, 1940, and while there seems to be some doubt whether this will be an accomplished fact on that date, we nevertheless feel that it is important at this time to give consideration to the future rights of the United States and its nationals in those territories under the new conditions which will prevail. In this connection you will recall that Articles 3 and 8 of the Franco-Syrian and the Franco-Lebanese treaties apparently assume that all international obligations which were undertaken by France with respect to the mandated territories will automatically become binding on the Syrian and Lebanese governments when these States attain their sovereignty. This intention would seem to be clearly stated by Article 8 of the treaties, which reads as follows:

“Article 8.—From the entry into force of the present treaty, the French Government will be freed from the responsibilities and obligations which are incumbent upon it, so far as Syria (the Lebanon) is concerned, whether arising from international decisions or acts of the League of Nations.

“These responsibilities and obligations, so far as they may continue to exist, shall be automatically transferred to the Syrian (Lebanese) Government.”

From our point of view, I think you will agree that if France transfers its responsibilities and obligations to the new States without our having received acceptable assurances from France or the States themselves relating to the protection of American interests in those areas, the situation would be confusing and unsatisfactory to say the least.

Our attitude toward the disposition of territories over which a mandate is being terminated was set forth in correspondence exchanged with the British Government in 1932 concerning the termination of the mandatory relationship between Great Britain and Iraq⁶ and published in the Official Journal of the League of Nations, January 1933, in which full reservation was made of our position that “the approval of the United States is essential to the validity of any determination which may be reached regarding mandated territories.” Moreover, we specifically enunciated the principle that “since the termination of a régime in a mandated territory necessarily involves the ‘disposition’ of the territory and affects the interests of American nationals therein, the right of the United States to be consulted with respect to the conditions under which the territory is subsequently to be administered is on precisely the same basis as its right to be consulted with regard to the establishment of a mandatory régime.” Copies of the correspondence containing these declarations were enclosed in the Department’s instruction No. 1440 of August 4, 1936, referred to above.

In addition to the right which we claimed in the case of Iraq to be consulted in the disposition of territories over which a mandate is being terminated and in their subsequent administration, we are obviously entitled to be consulted in respect to any modification which may be made in the mandate for Syria and the Lebanon, in accordance with the provisions of Article 6 of the American-French Convention signed at Paris on April 4, 1924,⁷ which I quote below for your convenience:

“Nothing contained in the present Convention shall be affected by any modification which may be made in the terms of the mandate as recited above unless such modification shall have been assented to by the United States.”

There would thus appear to be no doubt that the French Government is obligated to consult us in respect to the forthcoming change in the political status of Syria and the Lebanon. Our position in this matter is much stronger than it was in the case of the termination by Great Britain of its mandate over Iraq, for you will recall that in the latter instance we had waived our right to consultation in regard to the actual termination of the mandate by the provisions of Article 7 of the Tripartite Convention of January 9, 1930, between the United States, Great Britain and Iraq.⁸ I may add that a not dissimilar question and one with which you are of course familiar, is the recent controversy between Turkey and France regarding the Sanjak of Alexandretta,⁹ arising from Turkey’s insistence that the French Government could not freely transfer to Syria and the Lebanon the obligations and responsibilities which it had assumed under the terms of the Franklin Bouillon Agreement of 1921.¹⁰

In so far as both Syria and the Lebanon are concerned, it would seem to be to the interest of both to come to an agreement with the United States respecting the rights and privileges of the latter, since Article 5 of the Mandate, to the benefits of which we are entitled by our convention with France, provides that the privileges formerly enjoyed by foreigners under the Capitulations shall be re-established at the termination of the mandate unless the Powers shall have previously renounced these rights or agreed to their suspension. While it is not probable that any of the Powers would insist on the re-establishment of capitulatory rights, the legal position created by this provision should make the Syrians and Lebanese desirous of concluding treaties whereby these privileges are renounced.

The question arises whether we should now endeavor to commence negotiations with the governments of Syria and the Lebanon looking toward the conclusion of appropriate agreements to come into force upon the termination of the mandate or, pending the attainment of full sovereignty by the respective States, assure the preservation of our rights by some kind of provisional accord. It has further occurred to us that possibly the best course, in view of the existing doubt as to how much headway we could make at this juncture with the new and inexperienced governments, would be to approach the French Government directly on the subject of the safeguards and assurances which our interests require with a view to negotiating a tripartite convention along the lines of our agreement with Great Britain and Iraq in 1930. The advantages of making France a party to such a convention while that country is still custodian of the mandate are, of course, obvious—even if French participation therein would have a relatively short time to run. If such a tripartite convention were concluded provision might be made for the termination of France’s obligations toward us upon the termination of the mandate. In any case it would seem essential for France to obtain a release from its obligations to us through the conclusion of some formal agreement, and a tripartite convention might prove to be a suitable instrument.

I realize of course that you are in an excellent position to obtain an expression of the French views on this subject, and accordingly I should be greatly appreciative if at the earliest favorable opportunity you could find it convenient to discuss the question informally but in some detail with the appropriate authorities, seeking in particular a clarification of the French attitude toward our right to be consulted in respect to the projected changes in the mandated territories as well as in respect to the procedure which might be envisaged by the United States in its establishment of treaty relations with the new States. Your own comments and observations on this subject would of course be warmly welcomed and given the Division’s close attention.

Sincerely yours,

Wallace Murray

4. Foreign Relations, 1936, vol. iii, p. 496.
5. Despatch No. 3021, ibid., p. 498.
6. See Foreign Relations, 1932, vol. ii, pp. 672 ff.
7. Foreign Relations, 1924, vol. i, p. 741.
8. Ibid, 1930, vol. iii, p. 302.
9. For further correspondence regarding the status of the Sanjak of Alexandretta, see pp. 1031 ff.
10. Signed at Angora, October 20, 1921; League of Nations Treaty Series, vol. liv, p. 177.