767.68119 P&M/3: Telegram
The Special Mission at Lausanne to the Secretary of State
[Received 8:11 p.m.]
157. As was foreseen, Ismet’s attitude on the capitulations was absolutely unyielding during this morning’s session of the second commission.52 The import of his statements was that the internal laws and administration of Turkey should regulate the status of foreigners. It seemed an inopportune moment to come forward with the suggestion for a commission, which by the Department’s 63 of December 22 was left to our discretion. But when the four Allied Powers had entered very stiff protests against the position taken by the Turks, in spite of what the Allies had conceded on abolition of the capitulations, we then gave an exposition of the position of the United States with the object of putting on record our intention not to surrender certain rights and also with the hope that the Turkish delegation might be induced thereby to adopt more moderate views. Child’s statement given below contains the substance of representations repeatedly made to Ismet during our interviews:53
“The United States has an independent position which is based on two important and serious considerations.
The first is the sanctity of obligations. The United States enjoys certain treaty rights which are obligations to Turkey. In 1914 these obligations on the part of Turkey existed towards many nations. The United States is one among these, whose rights under these obligations cannot be set aside by Turkey alone except by repudiation. We do not believe that Turkey desires to follow the unsuccessful example of the nations which base their independence upon the mere repudiation of international obligation.
The second consideration is the fundamental equity which foreigners such as the nationals of the United States who have invested their personal or material fortunes in Turkey may expect from the Turkish Government. The protection upon which they have counted cannot be withdrawn without the creation of obvious injustice. All [Page 937] the world, including I believe the Turkish people themselves, would look upon this injustice as an offense to those principles which create international faith and fidelity so necessary for the functioning of the social security of the world and the cooperation of economic forces.
The representatives of the United States understand that in respect to these rights created by treaty or by usage the position of the Turkish delegation has been founded upon a desire for complete freedom from any possible restriction of the sovereignty and independence of Turkey.
For the maintenance Turkish sovereignty we have sympathy. For its progress we have much hope. We have observed that we are not the only representatives of nations here who have been inclined to accord to Turkey the recognition of her legitimate aspiration to be free of unwarranted interference. We have not, however, [refrained,] and we cannot now refrain from stating our view that sovereignty not only creates a duty for zealous guardianship of rights, but, in its highest sense, creates also the duty for an equally zealous guardianship of its obligations. It is our view that sovereignty, in the sense of the prerogatives of a modern government, is as often expressed in terms of cooperating with the outside world, such for instance as is involved in the presence here of His Excellency Ismet Pasha to maintain peace as it is expressed in mere assertion of inviolability and sanctity. In the modern world a sovereignty which has its eyes only on its sanctity is a sovereignty of isolation. It is our belief that only those sovereignties are progressive which have the confidence and readiness to arbitrate, to cooperate and to contribute to practical ends.
One of these practical ends to which the sovereignty of Turkey would devote itself under natural developments would be the substitution of new treaties with their rights and obligations for old agreements which might not be considered to meet the need of the times or of [justice, or of] new conditions.
We can believe that in this attempt Turkey would find a fair and generous treatment from other nations, including our own, in exchange for a fair and generous treatment accorded by Turkey. But if her policy should be along other lines, it is difficult to foresee better results than the world has observed in recent cases of governments which have attempted to prosper on the policy of repudiation.
The position of Turkey towards the juridical status of foreigners and their property in Turkey, as we are now led to understand it, is that Turkey asserts that she possesses a juridical system—including not only laws but their application in her courts—which will satisfy other nations and their nationals. Unfortunately this satisfaction does not appear at this moment to be the fact. The fact appears to be that other nations and their nationals, no matter how ready they may be for means for cooperation with Turkey, are testifying that Turkey does not offer either the continuance of existing rights or substitution for them of a system which will safeguard foreign persons and property in Turkey. The security may exist [in] the mind of the Turkish Government but the vital necessity is that foreigners themselves must feel that it exists.
To the representatives of the United States it appears clearly that even if no question of obligation on the part of Turkey existed, as [Page 938] indeed it does, foresight would cause Turkish sovereignty to express itself in a program dealing with the juridical status of foreigners in such a manner as would invite and not repel foreigners from that intercourse upon which the prosperity of nations is founded.
With a full appreciation of the legitimate aspirations of Turkey for an inviolable sovereignty, we point out that treaties which will give foreigners a status of security in Turkey can deprive Turkey of nothing, and indeed would be the very foundation for her economic future.”
Before adjournment Ismet asked for time to give further thought to his final decision.