Office of the Historian
  1. Home
  2. Historical Documents
  3. Foreign Relations of the United States Diplomatic Papers, 1934, General, the British Commonwealth, Volume I
  4. Document 385

500.A14/675: Telegram

The American Delegate (Wilson) to the Secretary of State

Geneva, June 23, 1934—2 p.m.
[Received June 23—10:15 a.m.]

912. Your 438, June 22, 4 p.m.

(1)
On receipt of your telegram I discussed this matter very informally with Malkin.23 He disclaimed any deep knowledge of the subject but stated that for many years the British had exercised certain rights of visit and search in the Persian Gulf presumably on the basis of agreements anterior to 1925; that he could see no legal effect in the Senate’s reservation. He added that he thought the only effect of the reservation would be political in that it would make the Persians even more difficult than they are at present and would stiffen their attitude by the knowledge that their cause had found support in the United States.
(2)
I question whether I can pursue this matter further here to a useful purpose and without running the risk of publicity on the question. I venture to suggest that the British Government could be more adequately sounded on the matter through our Embassy at London.
(3)
Further, the treaty of 1925 provides that the French Government is the depositary of ratification therefore presumably it would be for the French Government to decide whether the reservation by the Senate would make it necessary to circulate the powers which have already ratified the treaty asking them whether they accepted the Senate’s reservation. In the possibility that you may desire to consult the Embassies in Paris and London I am sending copies of the pertinent telegrams to them.
(4)
I venture further to state that my reading of the reservation shows ambiguity in the use of the phrase “such adherence”. In accordance with the phraseology this might be interpreted as meaning that we would not accept the treaty unless the States named accepted our “understanding” respecting the Persian Gulf.
(5)
Concerning point (b) first paragraph your 438 at this moment I cannot amplify what I reported in my 910. However, the problem of gun running in the Persian Gulf is so important to the Indian Government that any act having even indirect effect upon it must give serious concern to the British Government. I will of course report any further developments.
Wilson
  1. Sir H. W. Malkin, Legal Adviser to the British Foreign Office.↩