Foreign Relations of the United States: Diplomatic Papers, 1944, The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, The Far East, Volume V

890E.01/10–544

The Department of State to the French Delegation in Washington ⁶¹

Memorandum

The Government of the United States has been guided in its attitude toward Syria and Lebanon since the events of July 1941 by two principal considerations:

1) Its frequently reiterated sympathy with the aspirations of the Syrian and Lebanese peoples for the full enjoyment of sovereign independence which has been envisaged since the establishment of the “Class A” Mandate; and

2) its established policy of according recognition to another government only when such government is in possession of the machinery of state, administering the government with the assent of the people thereof and without substantial resistance to its authority, and is in a position to fulfill the obligations and responsibilities of a sovereign state.

The United States Government was thus unable to accede to the original request that it grant full recognition to Syria and Lebanon, made to it by the French authorities following the issuance of the independence proclamations by General Catroux in 1941,⁶² though it was glad to recognize the step thus taken towards independence by establishing Legations at Beirut and Damascus and accrediting to the local Governments a “Diplomatic Agent,”⁶³ a rank customarily used in the case of semi-independent States. This Government has subsequently followed developments in the Levant States with careful attention. It welcomed the accords concluded with the local Governments by General Catroux in December 1943 and observed with satisfaction the transfer to them of the substantial governmental powers previously exercised by the French authorities. As the French Delegate at Washington was recently informed, the Government of the United States has concluded that Syria and Lebanon may now be considered to be effectively independent, and is therefore according full recognition of this independence by accrediting to the local Governments at Beirut and Damascus an Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary.

It will be seen from the foregoing that the relations of the United States Government with Syria and Lebanon have been conducted in accordance with the realities of the situation. In the view of this Government, the war powers exercised by the French and British authorities in Syria and Lebanon could not be considered inconsistent with or derogatory to the independence of the States, since these powers have been freely and willingly granted and have been repeatedly confirmed by the local Governments. As to the complex legal situation, involving questions of the status of the League of Nations and of the position of France therein, as well as of the juridical validity of the independence proclamations themselves, it is the opinion of this Government, as the French Committee of National Liberation was informed at Algiers in November 1943,⁶⁵ that no useful purpose would be served by academic discussion of these legal technicalities.

As regards “the accords to be concluded between France and the States,” these would appear to constitute a question between France and the Syrian and Lebanese Republics, respectively, which would not affect the relationship between these Republics and other sovereign States. The United States would naturally have no reason to object to the conclusion of agreements defining the relationship of France with Syria and Lebanon which were freely and voluntarily agreed to between the interested parties and did not infringe the rights and interests of others. In this connection, it may be recalled that France long ago accepted the general principle that all nations should receive equal treatment in law and in fact even in the mandated territories and that France guaranteed such treatment to the interests of the United States and its nationals in Syria and Lebanon by the Treaty of 1924 and related instruments. The United States could therefore not agree that France or French nationals should enjoy discriminatory privileges in independent Syria and Lebanon.

On the other hand, the United States Government gladly recognizes the relations of special friendship which have long existed between France and the Levant States, particularly Lebanon. It was distressed when this relationship was endangered by the crisis of November 1943 in Lebanon and sincerely hopes that the close friendship and mutual good will heretofore prevailing between the French people and the peoples of Syria and Lebanon will continue to characterize the relations between them in the future.

Washington , October 5, 1944.

61. Notation on the original: “Presented personally to M. Hoppenot by Mr. Wallace Murray Oct. 10, 1944 FDK.” See memorandum of October 10, p. 799. Henri Hoppenot was a member of the French Delegation in Washington.
62. For correspondence relating to the refusal of the United States to recognize the new regimes in Syria and Lebanon, see Foreign Relations, 1941, vol. iii, pp. 785 ff.; see also memorandum of October 23, by the Deputy Director of the Office of Near Eastern and African Affairs, post, p. 805.
63. See Foreign Relations, 1942, vol. iv, pp. 641 ff.
65. See telegram 2096, November 9, 1943, to Algiers, Foreign Relations, 1943, vol. iv, p. 1007; and telegram 1986, November 13, 1943, from Algiers, ibid., p. 1024.