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

Memorandum of Conversation, by the Assistant Chief of the Division of Near Eastern Affairs (Kohler)

[ Washington ,] October 10, 1944.

Participants:	M. Hoppenot, French Delegate at Washington
	Mr. Murray
	Mr. Kohler

M. Hoppenot called today, at Mr. Murray’s request, to receive the Department’s memorandum dated October 5, 1944, regarding United States policy toward Syria and Lebanon.

In presenting this memorandum, Mr. Murray said he desired to emphasize our earnest hope that in their dealings with the Syrians and Lebanese, particularly as relates to the conclusion of treaties, the French would pursue a tactful, generous and friendly policy rather than narrow, legalistic and dictatorial methods. We were convinced, he said, that the former would obtain the maximum goodwill and concessions for France in the Levant States and that the latter might well obtain nothing. In this connection, Mr. Murray pointed out to M. Hoppenot that with the Russian recognition of the independence of Syria and Lebanon and the revival of active Soviet interest in the Near East a new factor had entered the picture. The Levantine peoples were old hands at playing one party off against the other and might well turn to Russia for support if pressed too hard by the French; it seemed significant that the Syrian President had already protested not only to Roosevelt and Churchill, but also to Stalin, regarding the pressure he thought was being put on him to negotiate a treaty of “special privilege” with the French.

Mr. Murray continued that there was only one previous case of the termination of a mandate by a Treaty of Alliance, that of Iraq, and he wasn’t sure that could be called a complete success in view of the troubles of 1941 in Iraq.⁶⁹ In addition, he felt that the situation had changed fundamentally since the previous treaties had been negotiated between France and the Levant States in 1936.⁷⁰ Consequently he hoped that the French authorities would not slavishly insist on following the pattern of 1936 or the so-called “precedent” in Iraq. He was confident that French intelligence and wit was capable of devising more appropriate and successful methods, adapted to the real situation; he could envisage a France reviving the slogans and the leadership of the Revolution and in this spirit evoking an enthusiastic response from the Syrian and Lebanese peoples.

M. Hoppenot said he was not currently informed as to the situation in the Levant States, due to the present dislocation of communications with Paris, but indicated that he was in essential agreement with Mr. Murray’s views. He desired, however, to make two observations:

1) He felt that a treaty was necessary. France had invested a lot of money in Syria and Lebanon and acquired interests there which must be protected.

2) Negotiations would be difficult if Wadsworth, not to mention Spears, continued his “anti-French” activities.⁷¹

Replying to 2), Mr. Murray said we were awaiting a report from Wadsworth on the representations recently made by M. Hoppenot, and would discuss the matter further after its arrival. However, he could assure M. Hoppenot that the Department’s instructions to Mr. Wadsworth were invariably marked by the goodwill which this Government feels toward France, and he found it hard to believe that these instructions were not carried out in the same spirit.

69. For correspondence regarding the attitude of the United States toward the attempted overthrow of the Iraqi Government, see Foreign Relations, 1941, vol. iii, pp. 486 ff.
70. Treaty of friendship and alliance between France and Syria, signed at Damascus, December 22, 1936, and treaty of friendship and alliance between France and Lebanon, signed at Beirut, November 13, 1936; France, Ministère des Affaires Étrangères, Rapport à la Société des Nations sur la situation de la Syrie et du Liban (année 1936), pp. 201 and 229, respectively. Neither treaty was ratified by France. For correspondence regarding American interest in these treaties, see Foreign Relations, 1936, vol. iii, pp. 484 ff. and 496 ff.
71. In Department’s telegram 140, September 15, 1 p.m., instruction 225, September 16, and telegram 184, October 12, 7 p.m. (none printed), Mr. Wadsworth was informed that the French Delegation in Washington had made certain complaints to the Department of his “anti-French” activities and he was requested to transmit to the Department his answers to the French allegations. In telegram 220, October 14, 11 a.m., and letter of the same date (neither printed), Mr. Wadsworth denied any anti-French conduct on his part; the Department replied in telegram 210, October 28, 9 p.m. (not printed), that the telegram and letter had “enabled us to make satisfactory reply to the French here”. (890E.00/9–1544, 123 Wadsworth, George, and 800.00 Summaries/10–1244)