767.68119 T&M/12: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Special Mission at Lausanne
34. …
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Upon further consideration the Department has been impressed with the desirability of having the passage of both commercial and war vessels assured by proper treaty provisions without an international board of control. This is irrespective of the special reason for objection to our making such a commitment (see our 29, December 3, 12 p.m.).
An international board of this nature would provide an opportunity for busybodies and be a constant source of irritation. It would also be easier to secure the desired assurances for freedom of passage of the Straits if no demand were made for a board of control. It would accord with prevailing sentiment to allow such freedom of passage and to assure it by treaty would not give any proper basis for objection as infringing upon sovereignty. With the restoration of peace, with the ordinary opportunities for diplomatic action, and with the unity of sentiment which any evasion [Page 917] of treaty obligations would arouse, the Department believes that a treaty assurance would be ample protection because breach of such a guarantee would be so serious a matter and so easily detected.
I suggested these considerations to the British Ambassador in a conversation yesterday. I understand that the Ambassador is reporting to his Government. I explained, however, that our position at Lausanne would be stated by you. If possible, the avoidance of a controversy regarding an international control board is much to be desired. It is hoped that the Allies will be satisfied with treaty assurances and will not create a situation leading to our abstention from participation on a board of control claimed by others to be necessary.
It is believed that better results can be obtained at Lausanne by following the course suggested above than by insisting upon the acceptance of an unnecessarily difficult point.