The American Embassy to the French Ministry for Foreign Affairs
Aide-Mémoire
In the Embassy’s Aide-Mémoire of August 19, 1936,18 reference was made to the negotiations then taking place between the French Government and a Syrian delegation, looking toward the termination of the mandatory régime and the entrance of Syria and the Lebanon into the League of Nations as independent states, and it was pointed out that it had become important to provide for the future respecting the rights of the United States and its nationals in those states under the new conditions which would prevail. Inquiry was therefore made concerning the arrangements the French Government contemplated with respect to consultation with the United States concerning the termination of the mandate, the disposition of the territories of Syria and the Lebanon, and the conditions under which those territories would be administered upon the cessation of the mandatory régime. In that connection, reference was made to Article 6 of the Convention between the United States and France, signed at Paris on April 4, 1924, regarding the rights of the two governments and their respective nationals in Syria and the Lebanon, which provides that nothing contained in that Convention shall be affected by any modification of the mandate, unless such modification has been assented to by the United States.
The memorandum of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, dated August 25, 1936,19 replied that the informal negotiations then in course with the Syrian delegation had as their object the preparation of official negotiations at a later period, and that at the close of these official negotiations and after the ratification of the agreements concluded, the text of the agreements would be communicated to the League of Nations, and at the same time to the Government of the United States. The Ministry added that the Franco-Syrian and Franco-Lebanon treaties would be closely inspired by the Anglo-Iraq treaty of 1932 [1930]20 and that they would include a transfer clause to the Syrian [Page 1013] (Lebanese) Government of the rights and obligations resulting from any treaties, conventions or other international acts concluded by the French Government as regards Syria (the Lebanon) or in its name.
The memorandum of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs mentioned above did not go into the question of consultation with the United States.
The attitude of the United States towards the disposition of territories over which a mandate is being terminated was set forth in correspondence with the British Government in 1932 concerning the termination of the mandatory relationship between Great Britain and Iraq and published in the Official Journal of the League of Nations, January 1933. A copy of this correspondence was enclosed with a letter addressed by Mr. Wilson of the Embassy to M. de Saint Quentin of the Foreign Office, dated August 27, 1936. In this correspondence, full reservation was made of the position of the United States that “the approval of the United States is essential to the validity of any determination which may be reached regarding mandated territories”. The United States 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.”
In addition to the right asserted 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, the United States is obviously entitled to be consulted in respect of 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, to which reference has been made hereinabove.
The position of the United States in this matter is, moreover, much stronger than it was in the case of the termination by Great Britain of its mandate over Iraq, because in the latter case the United States had waived its 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.
It is evident from the foregoing that the United States has the right to be consulted by France respecting the projected changes in the mandated territories, and that France should obtain a release from its obligations to the United States through the conclusion of some formal [Page 1014] agreement. In so far as both Syria and the Lebanon are concerned, it would seem to be in 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 the United States is entitled by the 1924 convention with France, provides that the privileges formerly enjoyed by foreigners under the capitulations shall be reestablished at the termination of the mandate unless the Powers shall have previously renounced these rights or agreed to their non-application. In view of the legal position created by this provision, Syria and the Lebanon would undoubtedly be desirous of concluding treaties whereby these privileges are renounced.
It has been suggested that possibly the best procedure to deal with the foregoing questions in satisfactory manner would be the negotiation of tripartite conventions between the United States, France and Syria on the one hand, and the United States, France and the Lebanon on the other, along the lines of the convention of 1930 between the United States, Great Britain and Iraq. If such tripartite conventions were concluded, provision might be made therein for the termination of France’s obligations towards the United States upon the termination of the mandate.
- Foreign Relations, 1936, vol. iii, p. 467.↩
- Ibid., p. 500.↩
- Apparently a reference to the Anglo-Iraq Treaty, signed June 30, 1930. For text, see British Cmd. 3797, Treaty Series No. 15 (1931): Treaty of Alliance; or League of Nations Treaty Series, vol. cxxxii, p. 363.↩