890E.01/12–144: Airgram
The Ambassador in France (Caffery) to the Secretary of State
[Received December 9—6 p.m.]
A–143. Reference the Department’s airgram 166 of November 8,93 the position of the United States with regard to the relationship between France and the Independent States of Syria and Lebanon was discussed at length with Mr. Chauvel, Director General of the Foreign Office, who was familiar with the Department’s memorandum of October 5 and the substance of Mr. Murray’s remarks to Mr. Hoppenot. It was emphasized that the Department had no objection to the conclusion of the agreements defining relationships between the French and Independent States which were agreed to in a friendly manner between the interested parties provided they did not infringe the rights and interests of others, although the United States Government took note of the “relations of special friendship which have so long existed between France and the Lebanon [Levant?] States.”
Mr. Chauvel stated that the latest reports from the Levant indicated that the course of Franco-Levantine relations which he described roughly as “following a chart of abating fever” seemed for the time being to have returned to a “normal temperature.” Ostrorog was now in the Ministry on consultation, and he reported no feeling of apprehension that relations would become aggravated.
Chauvel stated that the French Government felt that some agreements were absolutely essential between France and the States in question, that he felt that a treaty was by far the most preferable way of definitely handling [terminating?] mandate status, and he repeated the now familiar French thesis as regards France’s responsibility to the League of Nations. He said, however, that France was fully prepared to undertake the negotiation of the subsidiary conventions before proceeding to the more thorny treaty. Among the conventions [Page 812] he mentioned: One establishing judicial rights and procedures both as regards French citizens in the Lebanon [Levant?] States and Lebanon [Levant?] citizens in France and its colonies; one military convention regarding protection of the area and the disposal of the special troops; one with regard to other military matters; one with regard to education matters and one with regard to commerce.
Chauvel stated that in his opinion the chief difficulty was that the two Levant Governments were obsessed with the idea that they would be afforded an opportunity to participate actively, although in a minor role, at the Peace Conference and that they felt that this participation would be handicapped if they concluded any treaties before the Conference met. This he felt was an error. He said that some days ago an invitation had been sent out to the Syrian Foreign Minister to come to Paris to negotiate. While no answer had been received, Chauvel was encouraged by the fact that at least the invitation was receiving consideration. He stated that the experience of 1936 had proven that negotiations could be much expedited provided they did not take place in the Levant. He said that if the Syrian Minister accepted, a similar procedure would follow automatically as respects the Lebanon.
- Not printed; it instructed Ambassador Caffery to discuss informally with the French Provisional Government the American position on French relations with Syria and Lebanon (890E.01/11–844).↩