611.6731/106
The Chief of the Division of Near Eastern Affairs (Shaw) to the Ambassador in Turkey (Grew)
My Dear Mr. Ambassador: In drafting the reply to your telegram No. 74, May 17, 9 p.m., there was some discussion in the Department as to whether or not we should bring to your attention an apparent fallacy in the reasoning of the Minister of Foreign Affairs as set forth in your telegram. You recall that in its telegram No. 47, May 10, 2 p.m., the Department had suggested that in the new notes to be exchanged a reference be made to the “Commercial Convention referred to in Sub-paragraph (a) of Paragraph Two of the Notes exchanged on February 17, 1927 concerning the relations between the United States and Turkey.” The Minister objected to this reference “on the ground that since the modus vivendi of February 17, 1927 expires May 20, 1928, reference thereto in notes to take effect after that date is superfluous.” The reference suggested by the Department, however, was to the first of the two notes exchanged by Admiral Bristol on February 17, 1927,33 whereas the Minister has apparently in mind the second of these notes,34 or the one dealing with commercial matters. Since the first of Admiral Bristol’s notes deals with general relations between the United States and Turkey and has an indefinite duration, there would not appear to be any impropriety in referring to that note in the new notes.
After reading your telegram No. 74, we had at first thought that the Minister of Foreign Affairs might be endeavoring to bring into question the present validity of the exchange of notes on general relations. We therefore considered bringing the apparently fallacious reasoning of the Minister to your attention. However, in view of the statement made by the Minister to you during your conversation of April 19th as reported in lines 16 to 20, inclusive, of page 421 of your diary,35 it was finally decided that it would be better to say nothing to you on this point in the reply to your telegram No. 74. We are the more confident of the soundness of our decision in this respect as the question is really a somewhat theoretical one without, so far as it is possible to foresee, practical consequences.
Do you think that when the Minister said to you that “as our [Page 956] relations were already established, firmly, there was no need of reestablishing them” he had clearly in mind the provisions of Paragraph Three of the Notes? Personally I should be very much surprised if the Turks endeavored to bring into question the validity of Paragraph Three and I should, therefore, by no means favor bringing up the question either with the Minister or with any of his subordinates. It would be unwise, it seems to me, to give the Turks any idea that we are in the least degree worried over Paragraph Three. I think the matter is one to be tucked away in our minds but to be brought up only in the face of a very specific act contrary to the provisions of Paragraph Three. Treating theoretical questions with the Turks is almost always a mistake.
Faithfully yours,