The Timaru Herald FRIDAY, JUNE 1, 1945. Complications In Syria

Timaru Herald, Volume CLVII, Issue 23216, 1 June 1945, Page 4

The Timaru Herald FRIDAY, JUNE 1, 1945. Complications In Syria

THE British House of Commons discussion of the dangerously deteriorating situation in Syria shows that there is more in the dispute than a difference of opinion between the French Government and the Government of Syria. The question is one which must concern the United Nations, and it is of special concern to Great Britain. Some harsh observations on the conduct of the French Government were made in the House of Commons and it must remain for the French Government to establish that they are not justified. Something more convincing is required than the statement made by the French Foreign Minister, M. Bidault. “France,” said M. Bidault, “wishes primarily to ensure that her cultural interests will be safeguarded in these countries of French influence, where she has founded many schools. The statutes of freedom and the rights of these establishments must be recognised and protected after her troops have left.” Present signs are that fairly robust methods are being adopted to protect French “cultural interests.” The conflict, which has now developed so unfortunately, is not only of interest to the French and the Arabs. Great Britain is also involved, partly because Britain, like France, has special interests in the Middle East, but chiefly because the guarantee of Syrian and Lebanese independence, given by the British Government in 1941, has encouraged the Syrians and Lebanese to look to Britain as their protector. Nevertheless, it is true that in an exchange of letters with General de Gaulle in 1941 Mr Oliver Lyttelton, then British Minister of State in Cairo, said: “We have no desire to encroach in anyway upon the position of France. Both Free France and Great Britain are pledged to the independence of Syria and the Lebanon. When this essential step has been taken and without prejudice to it, we freely admit that France should have the predominant position in Syria and the Lebanon over any other European Power.” Although this admission of French rights has been made, it is still clear that the Arab world looks to Britain to support Syrian and Lebanese independence. On the other hand, as the Economist said in February, “the French would regard any such interference as a British imperialist plot to oust them from the Levant, usurp their ‘predominant position’ and, with accustomed hypocrisy, to denounce a French policy in Syria and the Lebanon which is no less restrictive of those countries’ independence than British policy in Iraq and Egypt, and considerably closer to granting full self-government than British policy next door in Palestine.” In further comment on the situation the Economist said: “Added colour and bitterness have undoubtedly been given to this view by the behaviour of some British representatives in the Levant, who appear to have gone out of their way to exasperate French opinion and in doing so, have raised unduly high Arab hopes of British intervention. Intervention is indeed the policy which these men tacitly advocate. They see Great Britain as the champion of the Arab cause, expelling the ‘unwanted French’ and setting up an Arab Union in grateful treaty relations with Great Britain.” This simplification of the position in the Middle East is obviously perilous because it overlooks an aspect of British foreign policy which is much more important than British friendship with the Arabs. A sound and friendly relationship with France is indispensable to British diplomacy and General de Gaulle has made it plain that an open clash ‘ over Syria would unquestionably prejudice general relations between France and Great Britain. British policy has some Arab support, but it must be remembered that 10 years ago the Arabs in Palestine were fighting the British over the question of Jewish immigration, a question which is still unsettled. Nor can it be said definitely that the treaties which have given Britain a “predominant position” in Egypt and Iraq will not become as great a barrier against Anglo-Arab friendship as the treaty now proposed by France. Britain and France are really facing the same problem: how to reconcile the Arab world to their continued presence in the Levant. It may be that careful diplomacy eould devise a scheme under which it would be possible to preserve French prestige, concede effective Arab independence and protect essential British strategic interests. But to do this would demand a high degree of diplomatic patience, if not ingenuity. The present Syrian outbreak does not make the position so hopeless that the discovery of a new and satisfactory formula is ruled out, but it will undoubtedly create heavy difficulties at best, and at worst it could precipitate a crisis of major gravity. ________