Papers written by Curzon on the Near and Middle East [‎57r] (113/348)

[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty’s Government.]
EASTERN
[July 28.]
CONFIDENTIAL.
Section 1,
[E 9106/2/44] No. 1.
Earl Curzon to Sir G. Grahame (Paris).
(No. 2615.)
Sir, . Foreign Office, July 28, 1920.
WHILE at Boulogne yesterday I seized the opportunity to have a conversation
with M. Berthelot about the French intentions with regard to Syria.
I pointed out to him that, sorry though we were that this open rupture had taken
place between the French and the Emir Feisal, and easily and even reasonably as we
might have approached the French Government with interrogations, if not with
protestations, we had—from a consciousness of the difficulties with which they were .
confronted, and in pursuance of the absolute loyalty which had characterised our entire
proceedings towards them—abstained from addressing to them any enquiries during
the operations which had now culminated in the defeat of Feisal and the occupation of
Damascus. I said, however, that we could not disinterest ourselves altogether from
these proceedings ; and that, although Syria had been placed under the mandate of
France with our consent, and we should adhere as faithfully to that engagement as I
was convinced the French Government would to the corresponding settlement in
Mesopotamia and Palestine, yet Feisal was brought into certain relations with us, both
in connection with the pledges we had given to his father as to the independence of the
Arab countries, and also because of his connection with the areas for which we had
accepted a mandate. We therefore could not view his possible disappearance from the
scene without some concern, and we felt that no step in this direction, if it were
contemplated, should be taken without consultation with us. Rumours had appeared
in the newspapers that Feisal had fled from Damascus, and I had no clear idea at the
moment of who was in occupation of the city, or who was governing the State.
In reply, M. Berthelot gave me a summary of the recent course of events.
According to him, the acceptance by the Emir of the French ultimatum, although
delayed, as had been described in the press, had nevertheless reached General Gouraud,
and had been acted upon by him. The French advance had been continued, but an
armistice had been arranged, and the French troops had, M. Berthelot alleged, no
intention of occupying the city, had it not been that they were suddenly and violently
attacked by the Arab forces. A prolonged battle, with considerable losses, had ensued,
and at the end of it the French had been compelled to march into Damascus. So far
as he knew, the Emir Feisal was still there, and had not fled ; but M. Berthelot could
not sav what his relations were with the French authorities at the moment.
M. Berthelot then described to me, in tones of considerable irritation, the extreme
provocation which, he said, the Emir had given to the French, his disloyalty to the
pledges into which he had entered in Paris, his opposition and hostility to the French
troops, and the intolerable conduct by which he had brought matters to the present
issue. Though, M. Berthelot assured me, the French had had, and still had, no desire
to break with the Emir Feisal, he scarcely concealed from me the probability that, in
the last resort, they would find it necessary to dispense with his services altogether, and
to substitute some other ruler in his place.
1 rather gathered from him that, following upon the lines of our own draft mandate
for Mesopotamia, which prescribed the promulgation of an organic law within two years
of the acceptance of the mandate, the French might be contemplating an interim period
in which they would administer the State themselves, until they found some suitable
person who could fill the Emir Feisal’s place. M. Berthelot pointed out to me with
some force that the engagements into which we had both entered required us, if a ruler
was set up, to see that he was one who was acceptable to the people. He denied
altogether that the Emir Feisal possessed this qualification, and said that, if the Emir
were replaced, Ins successor would have to be a man whom the Syrians themselves
desired.
I expressed to M. Berthelot the hope that the French might not be so unwise as to
suggest at any moment the elevation of the pretender Mohammed Said, the son of
Abdul Kader, who had recently been released from France, and had himself suggested
in a speech that he might be an official French candidate for the throne. Such a