751.90E11/9–2344: Telegram

The Appointed Minister to Syria and Lebanon ( Wadsworth ) to the Secretary of State

202. Beynet and Ostrorog called by appointment yesterday afternoon on President Khouri51 to propose negotiation of Franco-Lebanese treaty. Premier and Foreign Minister were present. The latter asks me to inform you of their discussion substantially as follows:

Beynet said that in course of recent Eden–Massigli conversations in London the situation in Lebanon was discussed it being agreed that France should enjoy privileged position in the country; that the Lyttelton-de Gaulle agreement having dealt primarily with military matters and provided for wartime regime, it was thought best that the situation should now be regularized by treaty.

President replied that, as Beynet must know, Lebanese answer had already been given Spears, (see my 191, September 16, 6 [7] p.m.) and that knowing of Beynet’s démarche to Syrian Government (see my 194, September 20, 1 [11] a.m.) Lebanese Cabinet had met again during the morning and reaffirmed its decision, i.e. that it declined to enter into proposed negotiations or to sign treaty of special privilege with any country, preferring to await end of hostilities and integrate its position with that of other smaller nations in postwar world.

After replying that he would so inform his Government Beynet commented that Lebanon would do well to remember that it was three great powers only, powers with their own interests primarily at stake which appeared to have allotted to themselves the major role of peacemaking. France, he added, had not been invited to join them in that role but would always as in the past be ready to support the [Page 791] smaller nations especially Lebanon because of their long traditional friendship and close relations.

President said that, although he hoped such friendship would always continue, Lebanon’s position had materially changed during past year and that now Russia and United States had in turn accorded it unconditional recognition.

Beynet commented that Soviet policy is essentially realistic, its action in 1939 towards Baltic States52 being hardly such as to warrant confidence of smaller nations, and that United States seemed concerned primarily with Pacific affairs.

To President’s reply that he placed high faith in American idealism Beynet answered that though such idealism no doubt existed its effectiveness as factor in determining the peace should be considered in light of concurrent isolationist sentiment among its people; it could hardly be expected to interest itself actively in Levant problems except in protection of its various cultural and trade interests.

Beynet then turned conversation to progress of the war voicing conviction in Allied victory but fearing it might not be achieved in Europe before spring. Their leave-taking the Foreign Minister concluded struck a note of sober parting of the ways.

Repeated to Caserta.

Wadsworth
  1. Bechara al-Khouri, President of the Lebanese Republic.
  2. For correspondence relating to pressure by the Soviet Union upon Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania to conclude pacts of mutual assistance, see Foreign Relations, The Soviet Union, 1933–1939, pp. 934 ff.