711.672/57: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Special Mission at Lausanne
164. Referring to telegram 150 of May 24, from the Department. It is obvious that the greatest caution should be exercised in phrasing the article providing for the abrogation of the capitulations, in order that there may be no ground for contention on the part of Turkey that the retroactive effect of abrogation of the capitulations is recognized by this Government. You should bear in mind the situation in other countries, such as China, where we now enjoy capitulatory rights. The situation may perhaps be met by framing an article to the effect that as between the United States and Turkey the treaties by which the capitulatory rights were obtained are superseded by the present treaty. The words “as between the United States and Turkey” should be inserted in order that our present capitulatory rights may not be prejudiced in Egypt and other territories detached from the Ottoman Empire since 1830, lest we should be met with the claim in these territories that our treaty of 1830 is the sole basis of our capitulatory rights there.
A better plan would be to omit any reference to the capitulations, and to provide that the existing treaties and arrangements between the two countries shall be superseded by the treaty now under negotiation. [Page 1076] You might have difficulty, however, in obtaining this arrangement.
The Department regards it as important that the Turks should understand clearly that no formal renunciation of our capitulatory rights was intended in our preliminary statements expressing a willingness to have the capitulations abrogated. Only through the ratification of a new treaty is such renunciation possible.