611.6731/126
The Ambassador in Turkey ( Grew ) to the Secretary of State
[Received April 25.]
Sir: With reference to my mail despatch No. 676 of February 25, 1929, concerning our negotiations for a new commercial modus vivendi with the Turkish Government, I have the honor in the present despatch to set forth the various developments which have occurred up to date. It will be perceived therefrom that with every effort on the part of the Embassy to conclude the matter in the exact form desired by the Department, it has not been possible to keep the Foreign Office in line with the clear and precise oral understanding between the Minister for Foreign Affairs and myself. I ascribe these difficulties to the meticulous attitude of the Turkish experts in matters of phraseology and to the general vagueness and lack of precision of Tevfik Rüştü Bey. There does not appear, however, so far as I can now see, to have been any deliberate attempt on the part of the Foreign Office to mislead us in the negotiations. If such was the case, the matter has now been clarified and left in perfect order by my interview with the Minister for Foreign Affairs in Constantinople today as reported below.
. . . . . . .
[Page 815]As the announcement of our exchange of notes was sure to appear in the Turkish press shortly, and possibly as is often the case in garbled form, I thought it best to make the announcement to the local American press correspondents myself without delay and I handed to them the following statement in order that there might be no error. Had the correspondents taken the information from the Turkish press there would have been every probability of error.
“Notes between Ambassador Grew and the Turkish Minister for Foreign Affairs Tevfik Rüştü Bey were exchanged in Angora yesterday renewing the commercial modus vivendi between the United States and Turkey for one year from April 11, 1929, the date on which the present agreement expires. The new agreement is similar to the present one and accords mutual most favored nation treatment in customs matters.”
On the afternoon of April 9, I received Mr. Patterson’s letter of the 8th, a copy of which is enclosed herewith,21 from which it will be seen that the text of the note signed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs contains certain alterations in phraseology from the text definitely agreed upon between the Minister and myself. Mr. Patterson stated further that after due consideration he had come to the conclusion that the verbal alterations in no way changed the meaning of the note, so that he consented to the exchange on my behalf after inviting Fuat Simavi Bey’s22 attention to the alterations. Fuat Simavi Bey expressed his belief that the alterations were not changes in the sense of introducing any new meaning into the notes exchanged. Mr. Patterson added that should the Embassy not concur in this view he had no doubt that a revision could be effected.
I need hardly say that these last minute alterations of the text as orally but specifically agreed upon by the Minister and myself caused me great annoyance … Nevertheless, after comparing the altered phraseology in the Minister’s note with the phraseology approved by the Department and contained in my own note, I cannot see that the changes modify the meaning of the original draft or its intention. The only points which might conceivably be regarded as a material alteration are the following:
In the texts of the notes exchanged on May 19, 1928, the “countries detached from the Ottoman Empire following the War of 1914” were grouped collectively as a single unit whereas the American dependencies, Cuba and the Panama Canal Zone, were treated separately by the use of the word “or” instead of “and” directly preceding the words “the Panama Canal Zone”. Possibly the Foreign Office believed that this phraseology gave us a certain theoretical advantage and therefore in the new text of the Minister’s note “the countries detached [Page 816] from the Ottoman Empire” have been individualized by altering the phrase to “any one of the countries detached from the Ottoman Empire”, while the corresponding American special interests appear to have been dealt with en bloc by the substitution of the word “and” for “or” directly preceding the phrase “the Panama Canal Zone”. As matters now stand after yesterday’s exchange of notes, the Turkish Government maintains in its note that the provisions of the modus vivendi will not apply to any special advantages which the Turkish Government may accord to its commerce with any one of the countries detached from the former Ottoman Empire, while we maintain in our note that the provisions of the modus vivendi will not apply to any exceptional treatment which we may accord to the dependencies of the United States, Cuba or the Panama Canal Zone.
So far as I can see, the new situation does not involve the surrendering of any right which we possessed under our last modus vivendi or that we intended to possess under the present one. It appears to me that the Turks have been unnecessarily meticulous in securing by the new phraseology what they seem to consider a more equal and exact balance in the special rights claimed respectively by the two countries but I do not see that the change gives them any material advantage whatever. I therefore feel that Mr. Patterson’s action in accepting the Turkish note, while inviting Fuat Simavi Bey’s attention to the fact that unexpected alterations had been made, was justified, and he has my approval of his action.
Nevertheless the mere fact that these alterations had been made without my concurrence in advance was troublesome, even if not serious, and I accordingly sought an interview this morning with Tevfik Rüştü Bey during his few hours’ stay in Constantinople en route from Angora to Geneva. Enclosed herewith is the memorandum of my conversation with the Minister,23 from which it will be seen that Tevfik Rüştü Bey expressed surprise, which was clearly genuine, that any alterations at all had been made in the text. … The Minister then examined the alterations that had been made and said that he could not see that there had been any possible change in meaning or intent from the text which we had agreed upon. He gave me his explicit assurances that there would be no alteration in meaning or application but that if my Government so desired he would, on his return to Angora, replace this note with another note couched in the exact phraseology which we had agreed upon. On my referring again to the insertion of the phrase “and navigation” following the phrase “convention of commerce”, he said that frankly he saw no good reason for the insertion and that, although these treaties were generally referred to as treaties of commerce and navigation, the phrase [Page 817] nevertheless did not represent the type of treaty which we had agreed to negotiate, namely, a convention of commerce only. He would therefore be perfectly willing if we so desired to eliminate the words “and navigation”, but he frankly did not think that they made any difference whatever in the sense of the notes. The Minister added that I could count upon him never to place me in a difficult or embarrassing position and that once we had come to an oral agreement on any issue he would see that no alteration in the sense of such agreement should be made in the manner of its recording.
If the Department finds the alterations in phraseology in the Minister’s note to be undesirable, I shall be prepared to take up the matter with Tevfik Rüştü Bey, on the basis of his promise today, immediately after his return to Turkey, but if no fundamental objection to them is perceived by the Department it would perhaps be preferable to leave matters as they are.
As for the negotiation of a commercial convention, the Minister for Foreign Affairs has informed me that these negotiations can take place at our entire convenience, even, if desired, at the same time as his negotiations with the Italians. The Minister’s present plans are to be absent from Turkey for five or six weeks which would bring him back to Angora about the middle of May. If the Department desires to send me before that date the proposed draft treaty mentioned in its telegram No. 15 of March 18, 2 p.m., I have little doubt that the negotiations can commence soon after the Minister’s return.
I enclose herewith the original signed note of the Minister for Foreign Affairs as well as a copy of my own note as they were exchanged in Angora on April 8, 1929. It has seemed to me best to send these many enclosures in order that the record of the Department may be complete.
I have [etc.]