In this connection, I venture to enclose for the Department’s
consideration an informal note which has just been received on this
subject, repeating the substance of yesterday’s conversation mentioned
above.
[Enclosure]
The Chief of the Eastern Department of the
British Foreign Office (Rendel) to
the American Counselor of Embassy (Atherton)
[London,] 20 May 1931.
(E 2346/38/93)My Dear Atherton: At the end of our talk
this afternoon you asked me to let you have a line on a point which
I had taken the opportunity of your visit to raise, i. e. the
attitude of the United States Government towards the new Anglo-Iraqi
Judicial Agreement, in order that you might take up the question
semi-officially with the State Department. I am accordingly writing
to confirm what I said in the course of our conversation.
The present position, as you know, is that the existing rights of the
United States and its citizens are fully protected by Article 6 of
the Tripartite Convention of January 9, 1930, which came into force
on February 24, 1931. No change which may be made in the judicial
régime in Iraq will therefore apply to United States citizens until
the United States Government have assented thereto. On the other
hand, as we explained in our official note No. E 1920/38/93 of April
22, it is proposed to bring the new Anglo-Iraqi Judicial Agreement,
and the judicial regime for which it provides, into force in the
near future. If this should happen before the United States
Government have given their assent to the new arrangements, it would
presumably be necessary, if any case should occur involving the
trial of a United States citizen, to revive, for the purposes of
that case, the machinery at present existing under the Anglo-Iraqi
Judicial Agreement of 1924, and a somewhat anomalous situation might
arise in consequence.
As I explained during our interview, we ourselves are satisfied that
British subjects in Iraq will be amply protected under the new
judicial arrangements, and the Permanent Mandates Commission, as we
said in our official note of April 22, decided last November that
the new Agreement “seemed to offer to all foreigners in Iraq the
essential guarantees for the proper dispensation of justice and also
an improvement in criminal procedure in favour of all persons in the
country subject to Iraqi criminal jurisdiction”. Moreover, all
[Page 602]
the other Powers, who in
January 1931, enjoyed privileges under the old Agreement, have
readily accepted the new arrangements.
In these circumstances I feel sure that the United States Government
will not wish to withhold their assent to the new arrangements which
would thus become applicable also to United States citizens in Iraq.
My object in raising the question, however, was to ask, quite
unofficially, whether you thought anything could be done to hasten a
decision on the part of the United States Government, in order that
the period during which the position of United States citizens will
be on a different legal basis from that of all other foreigners in
Iraq may be reduced to a minimum. I feel that any unnecessary
prolongation of such an anomaly is to be avoided, and that it would
be all to the good if the position could be completely regularised
with the least possible delay.
Yours sincerely,
