711.672/65: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Special Mission at Lausanne
165. 1. Referring to Mission’s 393 of June 2, and in reply to your inquiry about the form of the proposed treaty, you should attempt by every means to obtain the assent of the Turks to the longer draft. My decision is based on the following important considerations.
- (a)
- On no account should you accept a treaty which is inferior in any respect to the Allied treaty, or declarations and letters relating to the administration of justice and to the protection of our religious and educational institutions in Turkey which do not contain guarantees as full as those accorded in declarations and letters presented to the Allies. Should Ismet seem disinclined to treat with you on this basis he should understand clearly that you can not go on with the negotiations. It seems wise to proceed with the negotiations, provided we can now obtain by express treaty provision all the privileges which the Allies are to receive together with a promise for the future of most-favored-nation treatment.
- (b)
- It is not desirable that the United States should derive its rights only indirectly from and as a beneficiary of negotiations which are being carried on simultaneously with its own and in which it has taken an important part. We should include in our own treaty all stipulations by which we expect to benefit.
- (c)
- While it is desirable to obtain a most-favored-nation clause as a guarantee of the future, yet with regard to rights which we are now claiming we cannot rely entirely upon such a clause. It would not be satisfactory to possess fluctuating rights, subject to variations in the rights of other powers. As other powers acquire new rights our position should be progressively improved through operation of the most-favored-nation principle, but concessions which other powers may make could not undermine our position. Our treaty should be complete in itself so far as our present requirements are [Page 1086] concerned, and it should not leave the nature and extent of our rights dependent upon the provisions of other instruments. If we should base our rights upon the Allied treaties, and if subsequently a war or other unforeseen event should render those treaties void, we should have got ourselves into an undeniably difficult position.
- (d)
- The above principle forms the basis of the treaties which this Government has concluded in the past. A most-favored-nation clause is to be found in nearly all our general commercial treaties which, moreover, do not look for any sanction outside of themselves.
- (e)
- The Department feels that a treaty which did not contain in itself specific provisions for the protection of our interests would be very difficult to explain to the satisfaction of our people here.
2. It is for these reasons that you are desired to adopt the longer draft as a basis for your negotiations. It is assumed that you have included in the long draft not only the detailed provisions referred to in Mission’s 393, but also stipulations for a general unconditional most-favored-nation treatment in the sense of the provisions of the Spanish draft.
3. As regards the abrogation of the capitulations, the formula you propose is approved, but it is also suggested that the point mentioned in Department’s 164 of June 2 might be covered by some additional phrase, referring to our capitulatory rights in territories detached from Turkey and recognizing abrogation as between the United States and Turkey. This alteration may call for minor transpositions.
4. Is it your intention that any of the provisions of the Allied commercial convention be included in our draft? Provided we are assured of most-favored-nation treatment the Department would not object to postponing the elaboration of the tariff regime if you so desire.
5. It is assumed, as indicated in the Department’s earlier communications, that you are to receive from Ismet written assurances regarding schools such as the Allies expect to receive. It is important also to obtain in writing the additional assurances expressed to the subcommission by the Turkish delegate. (See Mission’s despatch 18–A, enclosure 6 [10], forwarding report.73)
6. It would be desirable in the draft declaration upon the administration of justice in Turkey to drop the adjective “European” in referring to “legal counsellors” which the Turks will employ. You should also bear in mind the possibility that the way can be left clear for the appointment of an American adviser. (See Department’s general instructions,74 paragraph 12.)
[Page 1087]7. It is suggested that you explain to the Turkish delegation when you present your draft, that you are not bound by the phrasing as it is in tentative form only. The Department wishes you to telegraph the full text.