711.0012Anti-War/195: Telegram
The Ambassador in France (Herrick) to the Secretary of State
[Received August 14—6 p.m.]
233. My 230, August 13, 6 p.m.
[Paraphrase.] 1. French Foreign Office has just handed me draft of proposed instructions to French Ambassador at Moscow, which in substance is as follows: [End paraphrase.]
After summarizing the telegram which you proposed to send to all our diplomatic missions except those in the countries of original signatories, as set forth in your 247, August 8, 3 p.m., the instruction recites that as according to the terms of the treaty the Government of the United States is the depositary of instruments of ratification and adherence, its representatives have been instructed to communicate on this day to the Governments to which they are accredited an identic note the purport of which has just been summarized. The draft instruction then concludes as follows: [Page 145]
“It being impossible to make this communication at Moscow through the same medium by reason of the nonexistence of diplomatic relations between the Government of the United States and the Government of the Soviets, the Government of the Republic has agreed to insure its transmission through the good offices of its Ambassador in Russia. Will you, therefore, in informing the Government of the Soviets of the contents of this telegram, communicate to it the text of the treaty signed today in Paris and ask it to notify you if it is disposed to adhere thereto.”
[Paraphrase.] As we wished to run no chance of embarrassment by an attempt of the Soviet Government to send its instrument of adherence direct to our Government, we made suggestion that last sentence quoted above be modified as follows [End paraphrase.]:
“Will you, therefore, in informing the Government of the Soviets of the contents of this telegram communicating to it the text of the treaty signed today in Paris, ask it to notify you if it is disposed to adhere thereto and in that case inform it that you are authorized to receive its instrument of adherence in order to transmit it to Washington.”
Although Briand is still out of town his Chief of Cabinet said that he felt entirely justified in acceding to our suggested amendment and was confident that Briand would endorse his action.
The above instruction is to be acted upon on the day [of the] signature of the pact.
[Paraphrase.] 2. In course of discussion the fact that we are also without diplomatic representatives in Afghanistan, whereas there is a French Minister there, was brought up. I gained impression that, were we to make request, the French would be entirely willing to perform same service with regard to Afghanistan as with Russia, and that they might indeed be inclined to regard such procedure with favor as tending to remove Russia’s case from realm of isolation.
We should like to know if there are any other countries where similar procedure might be given consideration. [End paraphrase.]
3. With respect to your proposed telegram to our diplomatic missions as set forth in your 247, August 8, 3 p.m., the French request the addition of the following clause to the sentence ending “it also settles satisfactorily the question whether there was any inconsistency between the new treaty and the treaties of Locarno”; for the period after “Locarno” substitute a comma and continue as follows: “thus responding to the general observations of the French Government as to the necessity of extending the number of original signatories sufficiently to ensure the reconciliation of their new oaths with the international undertakings previously concluded by them.”