791.003/36
The Minister in Persia (Philip) to the Secretary of State
[Received July 13.]
Sir: Adverting to previous correspondence relative to the action of the Persian Government in denouncing all its treaties with foreign powers which provide for consular jurisdiction and other extraterritorial privileges for their nationals, I have the honor to report that there seems to exist a common opinion among my colleagues that the attitude of the Persian Government has changed of late, from one of … insistence upon alleged rights without regard for other consequences, to one of a more reasonable consideration of the question in all its aspects.
Having been away from the capital for some time I have not had occasion to remark this change as yet, but the representatives of Belgium, France, Great Britain and Italy, with whom I have spoken, are all of this opinion.
I am informed that the German Minister has, or is about to, acknowledge the Persian note of May 10th last,42 practically in the same terms as those authorized by the Department: i. e., without the reservation specified in the first clauses of the second sentence of the form of acknowledgment agreed upon by the members of the diplomatic corps which was embodied in my cable message No. 28 of May 14—3 p.m. The translation of this reservation reads as follows: “While reserving its ultimate decision and while taking into consideration the reasons which have necessitated the adoption of those clauses which, taken as a whole, constitute the capitulations …” etc.
I am under the impression that the acknowledgment of the Belgian Minister embodied this reservation. No other representative here has sent a written acknowledgment as yet.
My colleagues are of the opinion that the Persian Government is beginning to realize that its action in denouncing the “perpetual” treaties of France and Spain without the assent of either power was ill advised.
In a conversation with the British Minister on this subject he expressed his conviction as to this. He repeated what he had before remarked to the effect that he believes Abdul Hussein Teimourtache to be primarily responsible for the … unpremeditated action on the part of the Government. Sir Robert when [went] on to say that he has had recently a conversation with Prince Firouz on the subject. He considers this conversation as important not only on account of Firouz’s uncommon intelligence and comprehension of the western view point, but because of his intimacy with Teimourtache.
[Page 585]In the course of it he said he told Firouz that his Government viewed the desire of Persia with entire sympathy but that Persia’s action toward France in this matter was considered by it as equivalent to an affront and that, if insisted upon to the point of breaking relations for instance, would seriously impair the prestige and interests of Persia abroad; that Japan and Siam prior to the abolition of the capitulatory regime in those countries had conferred with the treaty powers as a matter of course, and that China had carefully abstained from any attempt to denounce her capitulatory treaties which did not provide for such a contingency; therefore it was incumbent upon Persia to have sought the consent of France and Spain to the desired abrogation of their treaties, so known as “in perpetuity”.
The British representative said that Firouz cited the precedents of the abolition of the capitulations in Turkey and Afghanistan as successful accomplishments, but that he had replied to the effect that Turkey by her action in this respect had lost much political and economic prestige, in his opinion. …
My British colleague said that Prince Firouz intimated the possibility of some extension of time, after May 10, 1928, being accorded by his Government for the purpose of completing the negotiations for new treaties, etc. Sir Robert Clive did not seem to contemplate the possibility that such negotiations might be opened in the near future.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The fact remains, however, that my colleagues generally consider the question of the abolition of capitulatory privileges to have passed into a less acute stage than existed, in their opinion, some weeks ago, and that there seems to be little likelihood that any definite negotiations will be entered into by the foreign governments for the time being.
On the 1st instant I had a short conversation with the Acting Foreign Minister in regard to the general question of the capitulations. At that time he suggested that his Government was somewhat surprised that the Government of the United States, in its acknowledgment of the Persian note of May 10th last, had expressed a request for information. Mr. Pakrevan said that his Government’s communication was in the nature of a statement that our treaty would terminate on May 10, 1928, only. I called his attention to the other points mentioned in the Persian note and said that I considered our acknowledgment as a sympathetic and natural one in every way. My impression at the time was that the Acting Foreign Minister’s remarks were not to be taken with any great degree of seriousness, particularly as, at the time, other and similar acknowledgments were expected from the foreign Governments concerned.
I have [etc.]