890D.01/468
The Secretary of State to the Chargé in France (Wilson)
Sir: Reference is made to the Embassy’s telegram No. 206 of February 7, 1938, reporting a conversation with M. Lagarde, Chief of the Africa–Levant section of the Foreign Office, concerning the rights of the United States and its Nationals in the mandated territory of Syria and the Lebanon. The Department is gratified to observe that M. Lagarde agrees in principle that the United States must be consulted before the termination or modification of the mandate over Syria and the Lebanon and that there should be an agreement formally discharging France from the obligations assumed under the American-French Convention of April 4, 1924.
The Department concurs in the suggestion that the situation might appropriately be regulated through the conclusion of tripartite agreements between the United States, France and Syria in the one case and the United States, France and the Lebanese Republic in the other case. Because of the different situation prevailing with respect to Syria and the Lebanon, as compared with that in Iraq at the time of the negotiation of the tripartite agreement of January 9, 1930, [Page 1015] between the United States, Great Britain and Iraq, the Department would not consider, however, that agreements respecting Syria and the Lebanon, drafted along the lines of the Iraq agreement, would be adequate or feasible. In this connection you will recall that at the time the tripartite convention regarding Iraq was signed on January 9, 1930, it was expected that the “special relations” between Great Britain and Iraq would continue for another twenty years. As a matter of fact, the Council of the League of Nations in a decision of December 16, 1926 [1925],21 approving the settlement of the frontier between Turkey and Iraq, effected by the Treaty of June 5, 1926, between Great Britain, Turkey and Iraq,22 had specifically stipulated that the mandatory relationship between Great Britain and Iraq should continue for twenty-five years. The negotiations culminating in the tripartite agreement of January 9, 1930, between the United States, Great Britain and Iraq, which had been initiated several years before, were intended therefore to safeguard the rights of the United States and its nationals in Iraq for the rather extended period during which those “special relations” were expected to continue, in the same manner that those rights were safeguarded in Syria and the Lebanon by the American-French Convention of April 4, 1924. A comparison of the texts of the two conventions clearly indicates their similarity of purpose.
The present situation with respect to Syria and the Lebanon is quite different. Whereas in the case of Iraq it was not expected that the territory would gain its independence for a considerable number of years, it appears reasonably certain that Syria and the Lebanese Republic will become independent States within the next two years. It will therefore be essential that the United States have in effect in those territories, upon the termination of the present mandate, agreements clearly and in detail establishing the rights of this Government and its nationals in replacement of the American-French Convention of April 4, 1924. For your confidential information it should be pointed out that although Article 7 of the tripartite agreement respecting Iraq provided that upon the termination of the special relations between Great Britain and Iraq “negotiations shall be entered into between the United States and Iraq for the conclusion of a treaty in regard to their future relations and the rights of the nationals of each in the territories of the other” it has not yet been possible to conclude such a treaty despite the fact that negotiations were initiated by the United States Minister Resident at Baghdad within a few months after the attainment of independence by Iraq and have been pressed almost continuously.23
[Page 1016]The Department would be loath to agree to the termination of France’s obligations under the provisions of the Convention of April 4, 1924, until satisfactory bilateral agreements had been reached with Syria and the Lebanese Republic covering at least those rights which are now provided for by the above-mentioned Convention and by subsidiary agreements. It would appear necessary therefore to conclude bilateral agreements with each of those States covering the following subjects: residence and establishment, commerce and navigation, consular rights, extradition, naturalization, arbitration and conciliation. Elements of the first six subjects are already contained in the Mandate, in the Convention of April 4, 1924, and in separate exchanges of notes. The subject of naturalization is covered to a considerable, though not entirely satisfactory, extent by the so-called Gouraud–Knabenshue Agreement of 1921,24 establishing the right of the United States to extend protection to those American citizens of Syrian or Lebanese extraction who, under American law, are entitled to such protection. Even the subject of conciliation may be considered to be already covered in part by an existing agreement between the United States and France. Copies of the several instruments through which are derived the basic rights mentioned above are transmitted herewith for your information.
In the light of the foregoing I enclose a tentative draft of an agreement which it is proposed might be negotiated, mutatis mutandis, between the United States, France and the Lebanese Republic in the one case and the United States, France and Syria in the other case. It will be observed that under the terms of this agreement France would be released from the obligations assumed toward the United States in the American-French Convention of April 4, 1924, upon the termination of the mandate and the entrance into force of treaties covering certain specified subjects between the United States and the Lebanese Republic and the United States and Syria. The French Government would thus find it to its advantage to assist in the conclusion of the treaties referred to in order to discharge itself at an early date from the obligations by which it is bound toward the United States. Furthermore, it will be seen that through the provisions relating to most-favored-nation treatment, the governments of Syria and the Lebanon would receive definite benefits by the terms of the proposed tripartite agreement.
Pending the conclusion and entry into force of treaties covering the above-mentioned subjects, Syria and the Lebanon and their consular officers, nationals, corporations, associations, vessels and goods [Page 1017] would enjoy unconditional most-favored-nation treatment in the United States, and, reciprocally, similar treatment would be accorded in Syria and the Lebanon to the United States, its consular officers, nationals, corporations, associations, vessels and goods. In respect to import or customs quotas or other quantitative restrictions, or any system of foreign exchange control, it would be provided that the share of the United States on the one hand, and Syria or the Lebanon on the other, in the total permissible importation of any product or of the total exchange made available for importation of any product would be equal to the share in the trade in such product which either country enjoyed in the territory of the other during a previous representative period.
It should be made clear in any discussions which may take place in regard to the suggested tripartite convention that its terms would be regarded as being in force until the treaties provided for in the convention had been concluded and put into effect. In other words, it is proposed that treaty negotiations covering the several subjects mentioned should be carried on concurrently and that at the conclusion thereof the treaties should be submitted to the United States Senate. It would be expected that a similar procedure would be adopted by the Syrian and Lebanese Governments, in order that the tripartite convention might be terminated by the entrance into effect of the several treaties at the same time through the exchange of ratifications. In this way any possible question of conflict as to the respective provisions of one or more of the treaties and the tripartite convention would be avoided.
It will be noted that the proposed agreement makes no provision for renunciation by the United States of the capitulatory privileges formerly enjoyed by foreigners which, under Article 5 of the Mandate, were subject to reestablishment at the conclusion of the mandatory régime unless the Powers should have previously renounced such rights or agreed to their suspension. While from the Syrian or Lebanese point of view it might be deemed desirable to include in the agreement an article whereby these rights were renounced by the United States, the Department is of the opinion that the judiciary system at this time in force in Syria and the Lebanon does not warrant the specific surrender of all rights of a capitulatory character in the present treaty.
For your confidential information, the Department’s position in this matter is based in part on a conversation recently held in Beirut by Consul Steger with Mr. Robert de Caix, French representative with the League of Nations Mandates Commission, who expressed himself as “rather pessimistic as to the ability of Lebanese and Syrians to govern themselves.” On the matter of American interests after termination [Page 1018] of the Mandate, Mr. de Caix especially recommended “careful attention with regard to the judiciary system, and insistence on the retention of mixed courts.”
You are, of course, aware that the only provision in the Franco-Syrian Treaty of Friendship and Alliance, signed at Paris on September 9, 1936,25 relating to the judicial rights and privileges of foreigners after the termination of the Mandate is that represented by the so-called program of judicial reform which appears beginning with paragraph 3 of Protocol number 4 of the treaty, and which the Department is not inclined to regard as an adequate safeguard or assurance for the future. The Franco-Lebanese Treaty of Friendship and Alliance, moreover, does not even include such a program of judicial reform, it having been reported by the Consulate General at Beirut in a despatch of November 19, 1937 [1936],26 that “the Lebanon is satisfied with the present administration of justice.”
If, however, in the course of the tripartite conversations the question of renunciation of capitulatory rights should be brought up, you are requested to inform the Department by telegraph, and further consideration will be given to the matter.
Please keep the Department informed by telegraph as to the progress of your negotiations.
Very truly yours,
- League of Nations, Official Journal, February 1926, p. 191.↩
- League of Nations Treaty Series, vol. lxiv, p. 379.↩
- See Foreign Relations, 1936, vol. iii, pp. 401 ff.↩
- See Hackworth, Digest of International Law, vol. iii, pp. 194–196. For further correspondence regarding continued application of this agreement, see Foreign Relations, 1937, vol. ii, pp. 923 ff.↩
- This treaty was only initialed at Paris, and was signed at Damascus, December 22, 1936.↩
- Not printed.↩