890D.01/476

The Ambassador in France ( Bullitt ) to the Secretary of State

No. 2276

Sir: As stated in the Embassy’s telegram No. 564, of April 8, 1938, reporting the considered views of the Legal Adviser of the French Foreign Office concerning the rights of the United States and its nationals in the mandated territory of Syria and the Lebanon, M. Lagarde, the Chief of the African and Levant Section of the Foreign Office, promised to set forth the French point of view in a written communication to the Embassy.

The communication, in the form of an aide-mémoire, has been received by the Embassy and the text thereof, together with an English translation, is transmitted herewith. There are also enclosed detailed memoranda of the conversations of March 31 and April 8 [7], 1938, on the subject.27

Although M. Lagarde promised on April 8 to supply the Embassy with information concerning the judicial safeguards envisaged in connection with the capitulations problem, the aide-mémoire of April 27, 1938, makes no mention of this subject. In a subsequent informal conversation with M. Lagarde, reference was made to this omission. The Chief of the African and Levant Section replied that he would make his promise good at an early date, but that he found himself in [Page 1022] the difficult position of not knowing exactly what to say as the whole situation with respect to the treaties negotiated with the Syrian and Lebanese authorities, and particularly with respect to the Syrian treaty, has become confused through the development, both in France and in Syria, of strong currents of opposition. He agreed, however, that the Foreign Office had formulated definite objectives with respect to the question of judicial safeguards and that he would, at an early date, supply information on the subject. He, of course, realizes that such information is essential to the elaboration of a draft residence and establishment agreement.

As regards the opposition to the treaties that are to establish the new order in Syria and the Lebanon, which opposition relates primarily to the Syrian treaty, it should be borne in mind that the treaties were the work of the Popular Front Government of M. Léon Blum, and that as the authority of the leader of the Socialist Party waned, opposition to the termination of French control over Syria became more vociferous in France. The opponents of the Syrian treaty in France argue that France must not abandon the Christian population of Syria to certain despoliation by the Moslem majority and, furthermore, that international developments since the negotiation of the treaty have made it imperative that the French retain a foothold in the eastern Mediterranean. The critics of the treaty contend that this foothold in the eastern Mediterranean can be assured only through revision of the treaty. The Christians of Syria have, apparently, taken full advantage of this situation, and, according to M. Lagarde, are pressing for further safeguards than those which have been obtained to date in their behalf by the French Government. Under these circumstances there seems ample reason to believe that ratification of the treaties will not be accomplished in the very near future.

Now that the Foreign Office has made its point of view definitely known with respect to the question of prior assent by the American Government to termination of the Mandate, but at the same time has admitted responsibility with respect to the safeguarding of future American rights in Syria and the Lebanon and has proposed tripartite negotiations looking to the conclusion of agreements which will assure those rights, the Department will, of course, wish to supply the Embassy with further instructions. In the meantime the Embassy will continue to press for information on the question of judicial safeguards and will also follow closely such developments as may have an important bearing on the question of the ratification of the Franco-Syrian and the Franco-Lebanese treaties.

It has, no doubt, occurred to the Department that the British Government has, since the signature of the Franco-Syrian and the Franco-Lebanese [Page 1023] treaties, presumably been giving consideration to the question of its future treaty relations with Syria and the Lebanon. In the event the Department has obtained any information as to the intentions in this regard of the British Government it might prove helpful if the information were passed on to the Embassy.

Respectfully yours,

For the Ambassador:
Edwin C. Wilson
Counselor of Embassy
[Enclosure—Translation]

The French Ministry for Foreign Affairs to the American Embassy

By its aide-mémoire of February 7 last the Embassy of the United States of America was so good as to make known to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs the views of its Government as to the meaning of Article 6 of the convention signed at Paris, April 4, 1924.

The Ministry has carefully examined the arguments invoked by the Embassy and by virtue of which the above clause would give the United States the right to subordinate to its prior consent the validity of the status conferred on Syria and on the Lebanon upon the termination of the régime now in force.

The Ministry is not able to join in this interpretation. The mandate, in effect, was conceived as having a provisional character embodying in itself the terms of its expiration. The authority (France) exercising the mandate is under the essential obligation of guiding to emancipation the countries submitted to its expressly temporary tutelage. The American Government has acquiesced, by the convention of 1924, in the fundamental conditions of this system, as have, on their side, the members of the League of Nations accepted them by the resolution of the Council, dated July 24, 1922.28 Moreover, these powers, just as the United States, would be justified in contesting the validity of the treaties which have as their object to sanction the independence and the sovereignty of Syria and of the Lebanon, only in case these acts ignored the rights which these powers possess by virtue of the charter of the mandate.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs understands none the less the interest of the United States that the juridical conditions of its nationals in the countries concerned be defined by appropriate agreements. The negotiations to be undertaken would relate to questions concerning consular status, establishment, commerce and navigation, as well as the treatment of scholastic or charitable institutions. The [Page 1024] Ministry, in communicating herewith the text of the Franco-Lebanese Treaty of November 13, 1936, and of the Franco-Syrian Treaty of December 22, 1936, as well as the annexed or supplementary accords, assures the Embassy that it will gladly lend its good offices to the American Government in the exchange of views of a technical character which should be opened to this end (protection of the rights of the nationals of the United States).

  1. Neither printed.
  2. League of Nations, Official Journal, August 1922, p. 1013.