711.672/131: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the High Commissioner at Constantinople (Bristol)
139. Grew has been directed to repeat to you Department’s 255, July 22, and 257, July 23,3 for your information and guidance.
The Turkish contention that the United States is asking for more than was conceded to the Allies is not easily understood by the Department. During the negotiations at Lausanne we have been guided by the principle of equality of treatment, and we are not in the least disposed to demand a privileged position or to ask for special rights. But the treaty of peace between Turkey and the Allies was negotiated under circumstances differing from those under which the United States is now trying to negotiate a treaty. The provisions and the intent of the two treaties are not the same. Moreover, there is a difference between the domestic legislation of the United States and that of European countries. It would not be fair, therefore, to regard minor changes in the wording of the draft as an attempt to obtain for ourselves more than was accorded the European powers.
The Department is in receipt of a telegram today from the Mission reporting that Ismet has stated that he will remain at Lausanne long enough to bring the negotiations to a conclusion. The Department believes that the negotiations are nearing completion. But you should not fail to remind Adnan Bey in your conversations that the original rupture of diplomatic relations cannot be attributed to the United States and that the present negotiations were not begun at the instance of the United States. This Government would receive a most unfortunate impression, therefore, if the negotiations should now be suspended through the withdrawal of the Turkish representatives, or if an attempt should be made by Turkey to lay down arbitrarily the conditions under which the negotiations are to be resumed if they should be interrupted. It would be regrettable also if the Turkish Government should be misled into thinking or should give currency to the view that the United States is more concerned than Turkey in obtaining a treaty. For it should be understood that [Page 1127] this Government will be compelled to take the ground that the existing treaties remain effective until replaced by a new treaty.
It is impossible for the Department to escape the conclusion that the Turks are trying to invent difficulties, perhaps with the idea of afterwards pretending to have won a triumph in diplomacy. This impression is strengthened by the Turkish statement given to the press yesterday at Lausanne.3a The United States is prepared to consider all unsettled questions in a spirit of reasonableness and compromise. But it refuses to be rushed into a precipitate treaty which only the Turks will find satisfactory.
- Latter not printed.↩
-
The following is an extract from a news despatch appearing in the New York Times, July 25, 1923, p. 3, cols. 4 and 5:
“Ismet Pasha and Minister Grew tonight discussed the outstanding difficulties which have prevented the rapid conclusion of the Turko-American treaty negotiations.
“A Turkish spokesman said tonight he believed the negotiations would soon take a favorable turn. He added, however, that the pourparlers were rendered difficult by the fact that the Americans asked for more judicial safeguards than Turkey accorded to other foreigners in the treaty. This request, he observed, took the form of seeking an extension of the competence of the foreign legal advisers, temporarily substituted for the capitulations system. The Angora Assembly would never accept such a demand, he said, and Ismet Pasha would tell Mr. Grew so frankly.”
↩