890D.01/585: Telegram
The Consul General at Beirut (Engert) to the Secretary of State
[Received 5:40 p.m.]
69. My 68 of today.3 I have had several conversations in the past few months with high British and Free French officials regarding their attitude toward the mandate. The British feel, as do of course Syrians and Lebanese, that with the proclamations of last September and November the old French mandate was de facto abolished and that independence is only limited by the exigencies of the war. On the other hand they admit that theoretically the mandate can only be said to be in a state of liquidation to be definitely terminated after the war either by the League of Nations or fresh international agreements.
The French prefer to think that technically the mandate continues in existence unimpaired until it is formally wound up by the League and until treaties between a new France and the Levant States have been signed. They concede however that as a matter of fact the mandate has been modified by the proclamation of independence and they claim that they are taking this into account in dealing with the native administrations.
The Syrians and Lebanese on the other hand complain bitterly that the Free French have done little or nothing to break with the old mandatory regime and that their attitude renders independence an illusion. They see that most French officials continue to act precisely as they did [under] the mandate and many of the minor ones are the identical personnel already known to the natives neither for special probity nor efficiency.
It is this reluctance on the part of the French to implement their promises which is at the bottom of much of the political unrest mentioned in my 64 March 3 and which is causing the Nationalists to look more and more to Great Britain and the United States for the fulfillment of their hopes for real independence and an Arab union.
Repeated to London, by mail to Cairo.
- Not printed.↩