791.003/90
The Ambassador in France (Herrick) to the Secretary of State
[Received April 9.]
Sir: With reference to the Department’s telegraphic instruction No. 59 of March 3, 1928, conveying information concerning the approaching abrogation of the Persian treaties for oral use at the Foreign Office, I have the honor to report that I recently took occasion to have a conversation with M. Charvériat, Acting Chief of the Asiatic Section of the Foreign Office. He said that M. Claudel had telegraphed him a very summary report of his conversation on this subject at the Department on March 2, and as I could see that the report to which he referred consisted of but a few lines, the Department’s conclusion as to M. Claudel’s lack of interest would appear to be substantiated.
Some five or six months ago, according to M. Charvériat, France had been disposed to consider common or concerted action with a view to protesting against the denunciation of the treaties, but encountering no disposition among the other powers to take such action, France had felt that she must take her own line in the sense of which the Department is aware. She was the more inclined to adopt this position as her interests in Persia are of considerably less magnitude than those of certain other powers. The implication of his remarks was that it seems somewhat late now for the United States—or any other country—to try and line up the other powers for action in common, whether it be that of urging the Persian Government to postpone putting the new régime into effect or of insisting upon the acceptance by the Persian Government of the sixteen British safeguards; he likewise inferred that agreement with respect to these [Page 701] or other safeguards, especially as to the advisability of pressing for their acceptance as a condition precedent to the signing of new treaties, would be difficult to attain.
M. Charvériat indicated that he hoped that by May 10 the new French treaty would be near enough to signature to render the transitory period a relatively short one, which should be devoid of unusual difficulties. In this connection, he stated that in his opinion the present Persian policy is actuated primarily and chiefly by motives of prestige, and the Persian Government, although insisting on the abrogation of the treaties, is not disposed in fact to mete out to foreigners harsher treatment of a judicial nature than they have heretofore enjoyed. I merely repeat these remarks for what they may be worth, not knowing, of course, how far they may be substantiated or discredited by M. Philip’s observations (see e. g. despatch No. 498 of December 1, 1927, from the Legation at Teheran to the Department24).
I asked M. Charvériat what would happen if his expectations as to the status of the French treaty negotiations on May 10, and the ensuing transitory period, should be disappointed. His reply, while vague, conveyed the impression that in such a contingency the French Government might be more disposed to consider the possibilities of concerted or common action.
The conversation concluded by M. Charvériat stating that in spite of the present position of his Government, should the United States desire to make any more concrete suggestion looking toward action along the same lines than had been embodied in the conversation with M. Claudel and in his report thereof, the French Government would always be glad to give it full consideration.
I have [etc.]
First Secretary of Embassy
- Not printed.↩