Coll 6/81 'Syria: Status of Alexandretta and Antioch.' [‎169r] (338/576)

5
sanjak and did not seek any revision of the existing frontier as laid down by the
kranco-Turkish Treaty of i921 and confirmed by the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923.
He said, however, that the Turkish Government were aiming at a permanent
solution of the future of the sanjak in the form of an autonomous demilitarised
area, under the “general aegis” of the League of Nations, the neutrality and
^demilitarisation of which would be guaranteed by neighbouring States as well as
by France, the United Kingdom, and possibly other Powers. At the same time the
potential value of the port of Alexandretta would be greatly developed to serve
the interests of all neighbouring and economically interested States.
14. For their part the French Government also lost no time in lobbying
His Majesty’s Government. The counsellor to the French Embassy in London
called at the Foreign Office on the 9th December on instructions and gave an
explanation (supported by an aide-memoire), explaining why the French Govern
ment could not agree to what would amount to the dismemberment of Syria in
violation of the mandate. Moreover, the recent Franco-Syrian reconciliation
and their proposed alliance would be jeopardised if France, as mandatory Power,
allowed the sanjak to be detached from Syria. M. Gambon expressed the hope
of his Government that the United Kingdom representative on the Council would
support the French thesis in the Council in view of the common interest of the
two countries in retaining the goodwill of the Arab world.
15. In these circumstances urgent consideration was given in the Foreign
Office to the policy which His Majesty’s Government should adopt towards the
dispute. The conclusion was soon reached that the Turks had no justification
in law for their claims. The legal position in regard to sovereignty over the
sanjak was governed by the Treaty of Lausanne, in article 3 of which the frontier
between Turkey and Syria was defined as being the line fixed in the Franco-
Turkish Treaty of 1921, and by article 16 of which “ la Turquie declare renoncer
a tons droits et titres, de quelque nature que ce soit, sur ou concernant les terri-
toires situes au dela des frontieres prevues par le present traite et sur les lies
autres que celles sur lesquelles la souverainete lui est reconnue par ledit traite,
le sort de ces territoires et lies etant regie ou a regler par les interesses.” This
renunciation was indeed made subject to the provision in the second paragraph
of the same article, which runs as follows : “ Les dispositions du present article
ne portent pas atteinte aux stipulations particulieres intervenues ou a intervenir
entre la Turquie et les pays limitrophes en raison de leur voisinage,” i.e., in the
case of the sanjak article 7 of the 1921 treaty. But as article 7 of the 1921 treaty
merely provided for the establishment of a £ ‘ special administrative regime ” in
the district of Alexandretta, it could not alter the essential fact that Turkey had
lost all sovereignty over the sanjak by virtue of the Treaty of Lausanne, and that
accordingly arrangements for its future status (provided that the provisions of
article 7 were complied with) did not require Turkish acceptance. The position
was that Turkish rights as regards the administration of the sanjak only derived
from the Franco-Turkish Treaty of 1921 in so far as its provisions were
reaffirmed in the Treaty of Lausanne. No interpretation of article 16 of the
Treaty of Lausanne could give Turkey the right to press for the separation of
the sanjak from Syria, or, in fact, to demand more than the continuance of a
special local regime for the Turkish minority in the sanjak provided for in the
1921 treaty.
16. The Turkish contention that the sanjak did not come within the scope
of the mandate for Syria was considered to be equally unsound. Turkey had
automatically accepted the whole mandate system as expressed in article 22 of
the Covenant, when she entered the League; she had consequently accepted the
French mandate over the Levant A geographical area corresponding to the region around the eastern Mediterranean Sea. States, their establishment and organisation
under the mandate and also the prospect of their eventual political emancipation,
in accordance with the terms of article 22 in regard to “ A ” type mandates.
17. Apart from the unsoundness of their legal position, the conclusion was
reached that the proposals of the Turkish Government for detaching the sanjak
from Syrian sovereignty were open to the following very serious 'political
objections : —
(a) Even if the Turks in fact cherished no immediate territorial ambitions,
it was probable that the separation of the sanjak from Syria would
eventually drive it into the arms of Turkey. In any case a breach
was likely to be caused in the territorial status quo of the Near and