711.672/306a
The Secretary of State to Senator Henry Cabot Lodge
My Dear Senator Lodge: My attention has been called to a resolution introduced into the Senate by Senator King (Congressional Record of June 3, page 10571 ff.17) with regard to the Lausanne [Page 722] Treaty and the so-called Chester concession. The treaties concluded with Turkey are now before the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate together with the information which I felt might be useful to the Committee in its consideration of these instruments. I do not feel therefore that it would be appropriate for me at this time to enter into any detailed discussion of the various allegations contained in the statement accompanying Senator King’s resolution. At the appropriate time and as desired by the Foreign Relations Committee I shall be glad to give full information with regard to any matters pertinent to the consideration of these treaties.
Certain of the statements of Senator King are of such a character, however, that I did not feel that I should allow them to pass unnoticed, although their inaccuracy has been indicated in the information which I have already laid before the Committee.
1. The charge “that the United States participated in the Lausanne Conference apparently for the sole purpose of securing and confirming the Chester oil concession and that in pursuance of that purpose, vested and essential rights of American nationals in Turkey were sacrificed and Armenia forsaken, if not betrayed,” is absolutely unfounded. As I stated in January last, “At no stage in the negotiations was the American position determined by the so-called Chester concession. This had been granted before negotiations of our treaty with Turkey had been begun. This Government took no part in securing it; this Government made no barter of any of its rights for this or any other concession.”
Senator King in referring to the date of our negotiations with Turkey has apparently confused the negotiations between the Allied Powers and Turkey with the negotiations of the American Plenipotentiary at Lausanne and the Turkish representatives. The latter negotiations were not initiated until subsequent to May 1, 1923. While the United States was represented at Lausanne during the earlier phases of the conference it had not prior to May 1923 undertaken the negotiation of a Treaty.
2. Senator King contrasts the action of this Government in 1920 with respect to the Sevres Treaty with that of 1923, indicating that there was in 1923 a reversal of the earlier attitude toward Turkey. It is possible that the Senator does not recall that the United States was represented at the San Remo Conference in 1920, which had under consideration the Treaty of Sevres, in the same capacity as at Lausanne. The United States, however, was neither a party to the Treaty of Sevres nor to the Lausanne Treaty of Peace between the Allied Powers and Turkey.
3. In view of the fact that the reference in Senator King’s statement to my memorandum of October 30, 1922, with regard to the Near Eastern Settlement is inaccurate I beg to enclose a copy of the [Page 723] full text of this memorandum which was given to the Press at that time.18 At the Lausanne Conference this Government stood for the principles outlined in this memorandum and was able to obtain substantial guarantees with respect to the points of interest which this communication outlined.
4. Senator King states:
“The Allies declined to make concessions to the Turks, both on the subject of the capitulations and upon the Armenian case. The conference was deadlocked largely upon these two points, and it was finally suspended on February 4, 1923.
“Meanwhile, on April 10, 1923, the crafty Turks ratified the Chester concession. The conference was resumed on April 23, 1923, and the American observers, who, during the first session of the conference, had supported the Allies, whole-heartedly in some matters, half-heartedly in others, transferred their support in all matters to the Turks, with the result that the Turks were enabled to impose their views and will upon the Allies.”
This statement is totally inaccurate. In the draft treaty of peace as communicated to the Turks by the Allies on January 31, 1923 it is provided in Article 26:
“The High Contracting Parties agree to abrogate the capitulations relating to the regime of foreigners in Turkey both as regards conditions of entry and residence and as regards fiscal and judicial questions.”
Thus prior to the adjournment of the Conference on February 4th, the Allies had agreed to abrogate the capitulations. This was not one of the points which brought about the interruption of the Conference. Nor was the issue with respect to the Armenians instrumental in deadlocking the Conference in February 1923 since the Turkish plenipotentiary had agreed to the provisions of the Allied treaty as communicated on January 31, which related to the protection of minorities. The statement that the American representatives after the adjournment “transferred their support in all matters to the Turks with the result that the Turks were enabled to impose their views and will upon the Allies” is utterly false.
5. In answer to the allegation that the treaty surrenders American rights and interests I would call your attention to the fact that the Americans who have interests in Turkey, whether philanthropic or commercial, have urged its ratification.
6. Senator King’s remarks with regard to the status of American philanthropic and missionary work in Turkey are both inaccurate and misleading. In this connection it is significant that the Americans who are responsible for carrying on this work in Turkey have [Page 724] indicated their view that their work could best be aided by the ratification of the treaty with Turkey and have submitted encouraging reports of recent progress.
In case there are further points in Senator King’s statement on which the Committee might desire to obtain additional information, I shall be most happy to furnish it.
I am [etc.]
- Vol. lxv, pt. 10, p. 10292, in bound edition.↩
- See telegram no. 344, Oct. 27, 1922, to the Ambassador in France, Foreign Relations, 1923, vol. ii, p. 884.↩