123 W 111/435: Telegram
The Diplomatic Agent and Consul General at Beirut (Wadsworth) to the Secretary of State
[Received December 4—5:56 p.m.]
501. My 3-day visit to Damascus for presentation of credentials was marked by cordiality fully equal to that attending my reception in Beirut; our policy, as enunciated in the President’s letter and my remarks, being acclaimed as the best possible assurance that Syrian aspirations for full independence will receive at the peace conference forthright support based rather on constructive international policy than on narrow considerations of national self-interest.
There could be no question, I was assured, but that the Syrian Government would willingly adopt policies to Allied wartime needs.
I found, however, as a dominant underlying theme in conversations with the Syrian President, Premier and Foreign Minister, the same apprehensions as to French imperialism, British muddling and American isolationism as were reported in my telegram No. 480 of November 24, 1 p.m.
Office of War Information has telegraphed full text of the President’s reply to my remarks (see my telegram No. 500 of December 140). To me he emphasized the high importance he attached to our maintaining a Legation in Damascus both as a continuing outward manifestation of our recognition and as essential to our understanding Syrian problems and outlook.
To his twice repeated affirmation that he wished the American Government to be the judge of these problems, I replied that we hoped rather to collaborate in so far as might be properly possible in finding mutually satisfactory solutions.
He was obviously most keenly concerned at the public statements made in Beirut last summer regarding the continuing mission of [Page 673] France devolving from its responsibilities as mandatory (see despatches Nos. 446 and 460 of August 13 and September 241).
On his insistence that the mandate should be considered as terminated by the declaration of independence, I felt obliged to say that, while my Government had not been called upon to offer any opinion in the matter, my impression gained in Washington, was that competent departmental officials considered the mandate to be suspended de facto as a result of developments which, in the normal course of events and assuming Syrian cooperation in our war effort, would crystallize into a situation logically entailing recognition of full independence rather than reestablishment of the mandatory regime.
He then stated bluntly that he wished Syria “assured of a place at the peace conference as a fully independent state”. In view of the rivalry (competition) between other powers which he need not name he felt this country’s future to be insecure. Would I not obtain the desired assurance from President Roosevelt?
I replied that I would not fail to report his words faithfully to my Government; and on his pressing for a personal opinion I suggested that, as the question obviously involved juridical considerations of considerable nicety, he permit me to discuss it fully with his Foreign Minister to the end that I might have a reasoned exposition of his Government’s views for communication to you. To this he agreed.
His only comment of political significance at the official luncheon which followed was his ready agreement with one which I ventured when reiterating appreciation of his welcome and helpful conversation. He had persuaded me, I said, of the truth of at least the first half of what a friend had told me before coming to Damascus, namely, that I would find that Syria wanted independence without limitation whereas a majority of Christian Lebanon would prefer independence with protection.
In the thought that they may be of timely interest should General de Gaulle visit the United States (General Spears having told me confidentially that President Roosevelt’s invitation has been accepted), I shall report in another telegram the substance of my other conversations at Damascus.