Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1921, Volume II
867n.01/215
The Chargé in Great Britain (Wheeler) to the Secretary of State
[Received January 12, 1922.]
Sir: With reference to my despatch No. 811 of the 23rd instant, I have the honor to transmit herewith copies of a further note just received from the Foreign Office on the question of Mandates.
I have [etc.]
The British Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Crowe) to the American Ambassador (Harvey)
Your Excellency: In my note of December 22nd.75 I explained the suggestions put forward by His Majesty’s Government to meet the American proposals, concerning the British mandates in Africa, contained in Your Excellency’s memorandum of August 24th. 1921, and reserved for the subject of a later note a reply to the proposals in that memorandum relating to the territories under mandate in the Middle East their position still being legally undefined.
2. The position with regard to these territories has not materially changed. A state of peace with Turkey does not yet exist, and the Council of the League has not yet formally approved the provisions of the draft mandates. The consequent delay and uncertainty causes His Majesty’s Government considerable anxiety in Palestine. In these circumstances the peculiar religious and racial problems in that country and the particular conditions which attach to His Majesty’s Government’s acceptance of the mandate as set out in the draft provisions are daily rendering more onerous the task which His Majesty’s Government have assumed. For these reasons His Majesty’s Government intend to invite the Council of the League of Nations at the forthcoming session on January 10th. formally to express their approval of the terms of the mandate for Palestine as drafted in spite of the dependence of the final legalisation of the [Page 116] status of the mandatory upon the entry into force of a treaty of peace with Turkey. It is with this object in view, and in the confident hope that your Government will find it possible forthwith to withdraw any objection that they may still entertain to the provisions of the mandate for Palestine that I now have the honour to furnish you with the following observations upon paragraphs 4 and 5 of your note of August 24th. in so far as they concern those provisions.
3. Paragraph 4. His Majesty’s Government have no desire to challenge the statement of the United States Government that the victory over Turkey was bound up with the victory of the Allied and Associated Powers over Germany to which the United States so generously contributed. In particular, His Majesty’s Government emphatically disclaim any intention on their part to discriminate against United States nationals and companies or refuse them full equality of commercial opportunity. His Majesty’s Government have already explained in the case of the African mandates why they find it difficult to provide in the articles of the mandates, which deal with these questions, for reference to any States, other than those of the League of Nations, whether by name or by collective definition, but they repeat the assurance given in my note of December 22nd. to embody an undertaking with regard to the equal treatment of United States citizens and companies in an exchange of notes between our two Governments.
Paragraph 5. (a) The difference in this respect between the mandate for Palestine on the one hand, and the mandate for Syria on the other, is due, not to any difference of policy but to the fact that whereas in Syria which was taken over at the time of the armistice, the native administration was found to be exercising its functions, the complete collapse of the Turkish administration in Palestine had compelled His Majesty’s Government to set up courts which in themselves provided, for the time being, such safeguards as are referred to in article 9 of the Palestine mandate. No foreign tribunals exercise functions in Palestine at present and there is therefore no question of their continuing to perform their duties. In that country adequate courts have already been established, and under the constitutional proposals that are now under consideration for Palestine, His Majesty’s Government have inserted a provision in virtue of which foreign nationals, including of course citizens of the United States, shall have the right to be tried by a court with a majority of British judges, except in trivial cases where this provision would lead to administrative inconvenience: in these cases foreign nationals will have the special right to appeal to a court composed with a [Page 117] majority of British judges. For the rest, His Majesty’s Government are prepared to recommend to the League of Nations the extension of the provisions of article 28 of the mandate for Palestine so as to ensure that in the event of the termination of the mandatory régime suitable arrangements are made to safeguard the rights secured by article 6 [9?] of the mandate.
(b) I have already dealt above with the question of possible discrimination against United States nationals and the undertakings which His Majesty’s Government are prepared to give. The wording of article 18 of the mandate for Palestine was very carefully considered, and I wish especially to point out that the explanation of the difference between the wording of the Syrian mandate and that of the Palestine mandate is to be found in the difference between French and British law: in the latter the word “company” embraces all bodies which would properly be entitled to the protection of the article in question. His Majesty’s Government feel sure that the United States Government, in the light of this explanation, will rest satisfied with the present wording of this article.
His Majesty’s Government regret that they cannot see their way to adopt the suggested introduction into the Palestine mandate of the provision of article 7 of the “B” mandate for East Africa on the subject of concessions quoted in your memorandum of August 21st [24th]. The suggestion appears to His Majesty’s Government to overlook the peculiar conditions existing in Palestine and especially the great difference in the natures of the tasks assumed in that country and undertaken by them in East Africa. So far as Palestine is concerned, article 11 of the mandate expressly provides that the administration may arrange with the Jewish agency, mentioned in article 4, to develop any of the natural resources of the country in so far as these matters are not directly undertaken by the administration. The reason for this is that, in order that the policy of establishing in Palestine a national home for the Jewish people should be successfully carried out, it is impracticable to guarantee that equal facilities for developing the natural resources of the country should be granted to persons or bodies who may be actuated by other motives. The general spirit of the Palestine mandate in the view of His Majesty’s Government, seems to render unnecessary the insertion of an especial provision preventing the mandatory from developing the natural resources of the country for his own benefit.
(c) His Majesty’s Government are well aware of the great benefits which all the countries of the Near and Middle East have received from the unremitting and self-sacrificing efforts of American [Page 118] missionaries and educationalists. They have therefore carefully considered the proposal of the United States Government that safeguards for missionary enterprises in the Palestine mandate should be expanded to render them equivalent to those accorded by article 8 of the British “B” mandate for German East Africa. His Majesty’s Government would however point out that the intention of article 9 of the Franco–British convention of December 23rd, 1920,76 was, so far as His Majesty’s Government was concerned, in no way to restrict the extension of missionary enterprise in Palestine. The particular article in question was designed by the French Government to satisfy religious opinion in France regarding the future of the large French ecclesiastical and educational interests already established in Palestine and Mesopotamia.
For the rest, His Majesty’s Government feel convinced that the religious and educational activities of the nationals of the United States are adequately safeguarded by the provisions of article 16 of the mandate for Palestine. This article is in fact identical in substance with article 8 of the British mandate for German East Africa. Should, however, the United States Government still desire some further guarantee, His Majesty’s Government would be prepared to make a declaration in suitable terms regarding the rights of United States missionaries as suggested in paragraph 2 of my note of December 22nd. regarding the African mandates.
(d) I have already dealt in paragraph 4 of my note of 22nd. December with the suggestion of your Government that the consent of the United States Government should be obtained as to any modification of a mandate once agreed upon and I can only repeat in this note the same offer with regard to the modification of the “A” mandates.
4. I reserve to myself a still further memorandum to Your Excellency regarding the mandate for Mesopotamia. The position of His Majesty’s Government in that country is peculiar. The course of events since the grant of the mandate, and in particular the coronation of King Feisal and the appointment of the Arab cabinet for that country, make it necessary for His Majesty’s Government carefully to consider the manner in which they can best fulfil the obligations undertaken by them in the draft mandate. They are therefore forced to examine very carefully what, if any, modification of, or addition to, those obligations they are in a position to assume. I hope however to be in a position at an early date to give you the fullest assurance on this matter.
I have [etc.]
- Ante, p. 111.↩
- Vol. i, p. 137.↩