711.672 (1929)/13: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Turkey (Grew)
48. Your 54, September 11, 11 a.m. The following are the Department’s views with respect to changes in treaty text proposed by Turkish Delegation:
Preamble: No objection to use of title “His Excellency the President of the Turkish Republic.”
Article One as proposed in enclosure to Department’s instruction No. 167 of August 6:
No objection to changes and omissions except that in line three Department would prefer to omit the word “other” before the words “customs formalities” and in line three of sub-heading B the reference to the Ottoman Empire in connection with date 1923 would seem to be open to objection since the Sultanate was abolished on November 1, 1922 and it was the Government of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey which was party to the Lausanne Treaty of July 24, 1923.
Article Two as proposed by Turkish Delegation:
No objection to paragraph one and to the first sentence of paragraph two. The ninth word from the end of paragraph one should presumably be “to” instead of “as”.
The Department would very much prefer to omit entirely the second sentence of paragraph two and sub-headings A, B and C. The Turks have apparently taken these provisions from article four of the proposed League of Nations convention for the abolition of import and export prohibitions and restrictions. By article two of that convention the Parties agree to abolish all import and export prohibitions and restrictions and not thereafter to impose any such prohibitions and restrictions. The exceptions specified in article four of the convention are exceptions to the broad general undertaking to do away altogether with prohibitions and restrictions. The Turkish Delegation in their draft of article two of our Treaty is proposing that very much the same exceptions be applied to an undertaking to give most favored nation treatment with respect to import and export prohibitions and restrictions and licenses. As applied to this far more limited undertaking, the exceptions are inappropriate and might even be construed as permitting discrimination. It might be pointed [Page 831] out to the Turks that paragraph one and the first sentence of paragraph two of article two would in no way prevent their adopting import and export prohibitions and restrictions in order to assist a monopoly, but would prevent their relaxing such prohibitions and restrictions for the benefit of some particular country without relaxing them for the benefit of the United States.
The Department would prefer to omit paragraph three since it is not the practice of this Government to grant bounties or subsidies and no provision on this subject has been included in previous American treaties. Its inclusion in our treaty with Turkey might give rise to misunderstandings as to the interpretation of treaties of the United States now in force but which contain no such provisions.
Article three as proposed by Turkish Delegation:
No objection to paragraphs A and B or to sub-headings one and three of paragraph B, except that in sub-heading one the expression “coastwise traffic” should be used instead of “cabotage.” According to the Department’s views coastwise traffic clearly does not include the matters covered by the sub-paragraph of paragraph numbered one of article twenty-five of the proposed British-Turkish Treaty33 (enclosure to your despatch 833 of August 28)34 and no special provision to this effect is therefore needed. You should carefully ascertain from the Turkish Delegation their views on this matter. If there is any danger that the Turkish Government with respect to American shipping will construe sub-heading one of paragraph B of Article three of our treaty to include the matters set forth in the aforementioned sub-paragraph of the British Treaty, the Department would wish to consider the drafting of an appropriate provision for our treaty. Instead of sub-heading two the following is suggested which follows closely paragraph numbered two of Article twenty-five of the proposed British-Turkish Treaty: “To the support in the form of bounties which is or may be accorded to the national merchant marine.” In sub-heading four insert the words “exercise of the” before “maritime service” and change “to” to “of” before “maritime assistance.” Instead of paragraph C the Department suggests the following in the interest of better drafting: “In all matters concerning the treatment of vessels which are not enumerated in the foregoing exceptions, the principle of unconditional most-favored-nation treatment, as well as the principle of national treatment provided in paragraph A of this article, shall be maintained.”
Article four proposed by the Turkish Delegation:
The Department agrees that it is more logical to include this provision in a separate article rather than in a sub-paragraph of article [Page 832] one as originally proposed. In view of the suggested omission of sub-heading A paragraph two article two the Department would wish to have included in article four the whole of the concluding sentence of the first paragraph of article seven of the German Treaty omitting, if you think wise, the words “on such terms as it may see fit.”
Article five as proposed in enclosure to Department’s instruction No. 167 of August 6:
No objection to changes proposed, except that the word “reservation” might advantageously be substituted for the unusual expression “double reserve”.
If the Turkish Delegation desires that the exchange of ratifications should take place at Angora the Department has no objection.
With reference to your telegram 55, September 17, 4 p.m. The Department entirely concurs in the Turkish Delegation’s interpretation of the words “other duties and charges affecting commerce”. The Department considers that it is clear from the words as well as from the context that income taxes and taxes on profits are not embraced within the meaning of this expression. The Department therefore hopes the Turkish Delegation will not insist on setting forth anything on this subject in a protocol.