890g.01/188
The Ambassador in Great Britain (Houghton) to the Secretary of
State
London, May 11,
1927.
[Received May 23.]
No. 1861Sir: I have the honor to refer to my despatch
No. 1701, of March 14, 1927,71 relating to the re-draft of the proposed Iraq
Convention,72 and,
in this connection, to forward copy of an informal Foreign Office Note
stating that this question is now under consideration by the Iraq
Government and setting forth certain considerations regarding the status
of American citizens pending the coming into force of the Convention
after ratification.
At the time this question was discussed at the Foreign Office, Mr.
Oliphant pointed out to a member of the Embassy staff that the original
memorandum from the Colonial Office to His Majesty’s Secretary of State
for Foreign Affairs on this subject expressed the hope, on behalf of the
British Authorities, that the Department of State, in the event of
American citizens being implicated in disputes or legal proceedings,
pending the coming into force of the proposed treaty, would accept this
status quo. Mr. Oliphant, however, added that
he hesitated to do more than inform the Embassy of the Colonial Office
statement.
I have [etc.]
For the Ambassador:
F. A.
Sterling
Counsellor of
Embassy[Enclosure]
The Head of the Eastern Department of the
British Foreign Office (Oliphant) to
the First Secretary of the American Embassy (Atherton)
London, 9 May,
1927.
No. E 1954/136/65. PrivateMy Dear Atherton: At our talk to-day about
the proposed convention between the United States, this country and
Iraq, you asked for a written note on the subject. Let me then
explain that this question is now under consideration by the Iraq
Government, whose views we hope to receive at an early date. His
Majesty’s Government fully realize the importance of concluding the
convention in the near future, and are trying to secure the consent
of the Iraq Government without delay.
[Page 809]
Some time must, however, elapse before the position of United States
citizens in Iraq can be finally regulated, since the present state
of uncertainty will not terminate with the signature of the
convention, but only with its coming into force after exchange of
ratifications. During recent months, there has been a considerable
increase in the number of United States citizens resident in Iraq,
and the High Commissioner in Iraq has drawn the attention of His
Majesty’s Government to certain difficulties which may arise in the
interim period, prior to the entry into force of the convention, in
the event of United States citizens being implicated in disputes or
legal proceedings.
Under the laws of Iraq, with the operation of which His Majesty’s
Government have no power of interference, the Iraq police are
obliged, for example, in the case of any disturbance of the peace,
to arrest the offender and bring him to trial before an Iraq
Criminal Court; and the only privilege which a “foreign” offender
can claim is that of standing his trial before a British magistrate
in accordance with the Anglo-Iraq Judicial Agreement of 1924.73 Were a
case unfortunately to arise in which a United States citizen was
brought before the Iraq Courts, His Majesty’s High Commissioner at
Bagdad would have no power to stay the operations of the Iraq law,
even at the request of the United States Consul, who might feel
bound to claim the privileges of the Turkish capitulations on behalf
of the offender; the British Government would have no treaty right
to intervene; the Iraq Government would have no legal power to
prevent the trial of the offender in the Iraq Courts, and the High
Commissioner could not advise them to act illegally. A complete
deadlock might thus arise.
My reason for explaining the present position thus frankly is not, of
course, due to any desire to retard or interfere with the
negotiations for the conclusion of a convention, nor because we know
of any such case being likely to arise—we do not—but solely with a
view to eliminating any possible future cause of
misunderstanding.
Yours v. sincerely,
