No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 April 2017
Upon the collapse of France and the signing of the Franco-German Armistice on June 22, 1940, there were rumors that military and naval bases in Syria and the Lebanon might be used by Germany against France’s former ally, Great Britain. In a broadcast from Beirut the French High Commissioner and the Commander-in-Chief of the French Forces in the Levant, General Mittelhauser, thereupon declared, that hostilities had ceased in Syria and the Lebanon and denied any thought of handing over bases to the Axis Powers.
1 Keesing, Contemporary Archives, Vol. IV (1940), p. 4125.
2 Shah, Ikbal Ali, “Will Syria Join the Axis?”, The Nineteenth Century and After, Vol. CXXIX (1941), p. 63 Google Scholar.
3 Bentwich, Norman, “The War comes to Syria and Palestine,” The Nineteenth Century and After, Vol. CXXVIII (1940), pp. 260–1 Google Scholar.
4 See Mr. Churchill’s statement to the House of Commons, July 15, 1941, reprinted in Charles Eade’s compilation of Mr. Churchill’s war speeches entitled The Unrelenting Struggle, London, 1942, pp. 1946–7.
5 The Mosul (or rather the Kirkuk) oil in Iraq is carried by one line to a point in the desert called al-Haditha, after which the line divides into two branches, the Northern ending in Tripoli in the Lebanon, and the Southern at Haifa in Palestine. See an excellent article on how the project of two lines originated by Dobbs, Sir Henry, “Mosul Oil and the PipeLine,” The Nineteenth Century and After, Vol. CVIII (1930), pp. 281–291 Google Scholar.
6 The Vichy Government protested against the British action by sending a note on June 9, 1941, in which it was stated that nothing in the situation of Syria and the Lebanon could explain the British attack, and asserted that there had been no collaboration in that area with the Germans. Great Britain’s reply to the Vichy note declined to accept its definition of the word collaboration and said that the British action was based on the facts of the case rather than on theoretical considerations.
7 See text of the Armistice Convention in The Iraq Times, July 16, 1941.
8 See text and a discussion on the Franco-Syrian Treaty in Marcel Hornet, L’Histoire Secrète du Traiti Franco-Syrien, Paris, 1938; on the Franco-Syrian and Franco-Lebanese Treaties see Toynbee, Arnold J., Survey of International Affairs, 1936 (London, 1937), pp. 748–767 Google Scholar.
9 Ikbal Ali Shah, work cited, p. 62.
10 The Times, London, June 9,1941; official text in Journal officiel de la République Syrienne, No. 40 bis (October, 14, 1941), p. 1.
11 The same.
12 The Times, London, May 30, 1941.
13 The Lebanon was of course implied in the term “Syria.”
14 Mr. Eden referred to Syria in the House of Commons again on May IS, 1941, in answer to a question raised by Mr. Gallacher (Fife, West) in the House of Commons:
“ Mr. Gallacher asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he would make a statement on the present position in Syria; and whether it was the intention of His Majesty’s Government to endeavour to secure complete self-government for the Syrian people.
“Mr. Eden: I presume that the question refers to the internal constitutional position in Syria. My information is that the recent changes in the constitution introduced by the French High Commissioner a month ago have been well received. These changes were warmly welcomed by His Majesty’s Government, who have always had great sympathy with Syrian aspirations for independence.”
15 The Times, London, Aug. 16, 1941.
16 Eade, as cited, p. 250; Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons, Vol. CCCLXIV (1941), p. 76.
17 The Times, London, November 28, 1941; Journal officiel de la France libre, December 13, 1941, p. 52. General Catroux had proclaimed the independence of Syria at Damascus on September 27, 1941: Journal … Syrienne, as cited, pp. 8–9.
18 General de Gaulle paid a visit to Syria and the Lebanon at this time; while passing through Beirut, capital of the Lebanon, on July 27, 1941, he was received with great enthusiasm and hailed as the liberator of the Lebanon. General de Gaulle confirmed the declaration of General Catroux in his speeches and conversations before the notables and religious leaders and politicians whom he met in Beirut.
19 Astor, W. W., “The Middle East and the War,” Journal of the Royal Central Asian Society,” Vol. XXX (1943), p. 137 Google Scholar.
20 The Times, London, November 15, 1943.
21 The Eastern Times, Beirut, September 22, 1943.
22 Shaikh Beshara el Khouri comes from a Maronite Christian family who have played an important role in Lebanese politics. He is a distinguished lawyer, had been a Minister of Interior in 1926, in the first Lebanese Cabinet, and Prime Minister several times later. He is pro-nationalist and willing to cooperate with the nationalist bloc of the Syrian Republic.
23 The Eastern Times, September 22, 1943.
24 See text of the Premier’s speech in Sawt al-Ahrar (Beirut), October 9, 1943.
25 The Times, London, November 15, 1943.
26 The same.
27 Willkie, Wendell L., One World, New York, 1943, p. 11 Google Scholar. In a letter to the League of Nations dated November 18, 1941, General De Gaulle had said: “The independence and sovereignty of Syria and the Lebanon will … not affect the juridical situation as it is established by the mandate.” He added that “this juridical situation could not be changed without consent of the League Council, agreement of the United States—party to the Franco-American treaty of April 4, 1924—and conclusion of a treaty by France with the Syrian and Lebanese Governments.” Ireland, Philip W., ed., The Near East, Problems and Prospects, Chicago, 1942, p. 235 Google Scholar.
28 See Mr. Eden’s Mansion House speech of May 29,1941. The full statement concerning the Arab Union follows: “The Arab World has made great strides since the settlement at the end of the last war, and many Arab thinkers desire for the Arab peoples a greater degree of unity than they now enjoy. In reaching out towards this unity they hope for our support. No such appeal from our friends should go unanswered. It seems to me both natural and right that the cultural and economic ties between the Arab countries, yes, and the political ties, too, should be strengthened. His Majesty’s Government, for their part, will give their full support to any such scheme that commands general approval.” The Times, London, May 30, 1941, p. 2.
29 See Quincy Wright, Mandates Under the League of Nations, Chicago, 1930, p. 577; also Majid Khadduri, The Syrian Question, Mosul, 1934, pp. 91, 106, 111.
30 M. Jean Helleu was in Algiers a week before the crisis and discussed the demands of the Lebanese Government fully with the Committee. It is held that he was granted full powers by General de Gaulle to deal with the situation (The Times, London, November 15,1943, p. 4).
31 This statement was published in all the Beirut papers and in the Egyptian newspaper al-Ahram on November 7, 1943.
32 The same.
33 Article 76 stipulates that “the Organic Law may be amended by a proposal of the President. The Chamber of Deputies shall consider such a proposal as presented through an amendment draft law.”
34 It was alleged that M. Helleu made use of Senegalese troops and tanks in carrying out his orders. M. Helleu later denied the use of Senegalese troops but it is reported that tanks were seen in the streets of Beirut.
35 The French press in Algiers, however, depicted the incident ”as a storm in a teacup,” according to the Algiers correspondent of the London Times (The Times, London, November 16, 1943 p. 5).
36 Al-Misri, Cairo, November 12, 1943.
37 See text of the letter in the Times, London, November 16, 1943.
38 The Times, London, November 15, 1943, p. 4. See also Mr. Eden’s subsequent declaration in the House of Commons on December 14, 1943, after his return from the Tehran Conference, in which he said: “Our interest in this matter [of the Lebanon] is twofold. We have sympathy, deep sympathy, with the national aspirations of the Arab World. We are the only country that has ever concluded a Treaty and withdrawn from an independent Arab State. Yet at the same time the preservation of order and tranquility in the Lebanon is an allied interest, for it closely affects the whole of our war effort in the Middle East”: The Times, London, December 15, 1943, p. 8.
39 The Times, London, November 15, 1943, p. 4.
40 It is reported that Mr. Casey consulted all available authorities in Beirut and, after returning to Cairo and meeting General Catroux, stressed the gravity of the situation and urged him not to go back on the declaration of independence.
41 The Iraq Times, November 29, 1943.
42 The Times, London, December 3, 1943, p. 2.
43 On November 29, 1941, Secretary of State Hull said that the United States welcomed steps toward the recognition of the “sovereign independence” of Syria and the Lebanon contemplated by the Mandate and the Franco-American treaty of 1924. The United States would, however, regard this treaty as continuing in effect until new instruments were concluded (Department of State Bulletin, November 29,1941). On September 19,1944, the United States accorded full recognition of independence to Syria and the Lebanon and appointed Mr. George Wadsworth minister to the two republics (New York Times, Sept. 20, 1944).
44 Evans, L. H., “The Emancipation of Iraq from the Mandates System,” American Political Science Review, Vol. XXVI (1932), pp. 1024–1049 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; also Majid Khadduri, Liberation of Iraq from the Mandate, Baghdad, 1936.
45 “Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized … until such time as they are able to stand alone” (Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations).
46 Quincy Wright, work cited, p. 331.
47 Evans, L. H., “The General Principles Governing the Termination of a Mandate,” this Journal op Intbbnahonal Law , Vol. XXVI (1932), pp. 735–758 Google Scholar; Wright, Quincy, “The Proposed Termination of the Iraq Mandate,” This Journal , Vol. XXV (1931), pp. 436–446 Google Scholar; Khadduri, work cited, pp. 28–31.
48 Lt.-Col. Pierre Tissier argues that the Pétain Government, under the laws of the Republic “is an insurrectionary Government”: Pierre Tissier, The Viohy Government, London, 1942, p. 54.
49 Since 1940 the Free French movement has been granted either de facto or de jure recognition in various cases; de jure recognition was granted by Great Britain on July 28, 1940, and by the Soviet Union on October 26, 1941, while recognition de facto was granted by the United States on April 4 and June 9, 1942. Other United Nations have also granted recognition.
50 Various Powers have broken off diplomatic relations with Vichy. Following Great Britain the United States broke off its relations on November 8,1942; Canada on November 9, 1942; Mexico on November 9, 1942; Cuba on November 10, 1942, etc.
51 On August 16, 1942, sixteen governments recognized the validity of Fighting French passports.
52 Lt.-Col. Pierre Tissier argues that from the beginning the Pétain Government violated the Constitution of 1875, while General de Gaulle has promised to abide by it and as such, Pierre Tissier adds, General de Gaulle is “the sole legal authority in accordance with that Constitution”: work cited, p. 54.
53 Art. 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.
54 Majid Khadduri, work cited, p. 36.
55 The Times, London, November 16, 1943.
56 The Iraq Times, December 25, 1943.
57 See text of the Organic Law in Taqwim al-Bashir, Vol. 40 (1929), pp. 119–129.
58 Toynbee, Arnold J., Survey of International Affairs, 1925, Vol. I, pp. 441–443 Google Scholar; Survey of International Affairs, 1930, p. 309 n.
59 Quincy Wright, work cited, pp. 119–126.
60 See Articles 90–95 of the Organic Law.
* See Department of State Bulletin, Vol. XI, No. 274 (September 24, 1944), p. 313, for recognition of Syrian and Lebanese independence by the United States.—ED.