[Enclosure]
The Head of the Eastern Department, British
Foreign Office (Monteagle), to the
Counselor of the American Embassy (Atherton)
[London,] 25 July, 1929.
No. E 3723/171/93
My Dear Atherton: In my letter to you of
February 18 under our No. E 751/245/93, I explained to you that the
final stages of negotiating the proposed Convention between the
United States, the United Kingdom and Iraq had to be held up until a
new Government in Iraq should announce that they were ready to
proceed to signature. When Belin10 rang me up some weeks ago to ask whether there
were any developments, I told him that a new Government had only
recently been formed at Bagdad and that we were still waiting for
news.
We have now heard officially from the Colonial Office that Jafar
Pasha, the Iraqi Minister in London, has been authorised by his
Government to sign on their behalf and in terms upon which we are
already agreed, both the Convention and the Protocol containing the
Assurances—(you will remember that a Protocol was suggested in the
memorandum which accompanied Mr. Houghton’s note No. 2133 of
December 12th).
Jafar Pasha has, however, received a further instruction from his
Government with reference to the Assurance about American schools:
this Assurance figures as Article 2 of the Protocol which I am
sending you in draft form herewith marked Annex A.8 He has been instructed to
point out to the United States plenipotentiary prior to signature of
the Convention, and to obtain an acknowledgment from him, that
[Page 296]
the provisions of Article
2 of the Protocol will not override the provisions of Article 28 of
the new Iraqi Public Instruction Law of 1929 which came into force
on April 22nd. Article 28 of this law reads as follows:
“It is obligatory to teach the Arabic language and the
history and geography of Iraq and the history of the Arabs
in accordance with the prospectus of the Ministry of
Education in all private schools, primary and secondary. The
hours devoted to the Arabic language must not be less than
five hours a week in primary classes and three hours in the
secondary classes”.
The High Commissioner for Iraq has explained to us that the new law
will not introduce any change into existing practice. At the present
day a private school, before receiving permission to open, has to
obtain the approval of the Minister to its curriculum, and such
curricula invariably contain provisions for the teaching of Arabic,
and would not be approved did they not contain such provisions. All
that the law does is to compel the Minister to follow the present
practice.
The communication therefore which Jafar will want to make is, as far
as we can see, non-contentious. If you are able to accept and
acknowledge it, it would, we think, involve an exchange of notes
between the United States and Iraqi plenipotentiaries only, as it is
a simple statement, and not an Assurance. I will try to arrange for
Jafar to show you as early as possible a draft of the note which he
would propose to address to the United States Plenipotentiary. That
and the United States note of acknowledgment could be signed at the
same time as the Convention itself, the Protocol, and the notes
which our two Governments are to exchange in regard to the duplicate
annual report to the Council of the League of Nations.
Turning to the draft Protocol you will see that, apart from altering
“American” into “of the United States of America” in the second, and
textual alterations in the third Articles, it follows the lines of
your memorandum already referred to. It also includes under Article
4, the text of the Assurance in regard to possible expropriation of
the United States property, as it stands on page 4 of your letter to
Oliphant12
of March 14th, 1927,13 under the
heading Paragraph 9.
The Convention itself, of which I am enclosing a copy in what we hope
and believe to be its final form, marked Annex B,14 is practically identical
with the one Mr. Houghton sent us on December 12th, 1928. On
technical grounds, however, we have introduced the following minor
textual amendments in the Preamble:—
[Page 297]
- (i)
- Section II. “His Britannic
Majesty’s Government” has been substituted for “British
Government”.
- (ii)
- Section V. The words “in Great
Britain” have been omitted after “His Britannic Majesty’s
Government”.
- (iii)
- Section XI. The word “of” is
omitted between “Ireland” and “British Dominions”.
If you are able to concur in the procedure proposed above, there
would be in all four documents for signature:—
- 1.
- The Convention.
- 2.
- The Protocol.
- 3.
- The exchange of notes in regard to our undertaking to
furnish a duplicate annual report. Drafts of these are given
in Annexes C and C1:15 they follow closely your memorandum of
December 12th.
- 4.
- The exchange of notes over Jafar Pasha’s statement as to
Article 2 of the Protocol.
Of these, Nos. 1 and 2 would be signed by all three
plenipotentiaries: No. 3 by the United States and British, and No. 4
by the United States and Iraqi plenipotentiaries.
Jafar Pasha has enquired who the other plenipotentiaries will be. May
we assume that your Ambassador will sign on behalf of the United
States Government?
As soon as I get your reply to the various points in this letter, we
will proceed to prepare the documents for signature with all
despatch. I am of course at your disposal if you want to clear up
any points by conversation.
Yours sincerely,
