500.A14/684

Memorandum by the Chief of the Division of Near Eastern Affairs (Murray)27

Mr. F. D. G. Osborne, Counselor of the British Embassy, called by appointment on me this morning to say that he had been instructed by his Government to make informal inquiry as to the background and reasons for the reservation regarding the Persian Gulf which was added by the Senate in giving its advice and consent to the Arms Traffic Convention of 1925.

[Page 468]

Mr. Osborne stated that the British Foreign Office, and in particular Mr. Oliphant, Assistant Under Secretary of State who handles Persian Affairs, appeared very much upset over the Senate’s reservation and feared that this development would complicate Anglo-Persian relations and render the Persians even more intractable than they are at the present time.

I repeated to Mr. Osborne what we have already stated to the British Government, namely that the reservation literally interpreted has little if any significance; that it does not ascribe to Persia any rights which she does not already possess; and that ratification with this reservation would not imply any intention on the part of either the President or the Senate to interfere with the status quo in the Persian Gulf or take any part whatever in any disputes which might have arisen or may arise with respect to rights to territory in that part of the world. I also informed Mr. Osborne that the Department was not advised of the possibility of this reservation being passed by the Senate until very shortly before it was done and that the Department had endeavored to prevent it; that, furthermore, the Senate reservation was adopted, without discussion and with no apparent concern as to its significance, if any, during the last moments of a crowded session. Mr. Osborne replied that he was glad to know this since his Government seemed to believe that the Senate had sat all day in solemn session discussing Persian affairs and after mature consideration had decided to intervene in that part of the world. He said he felt sure he could dispel any misunderstanding which his Government might have on that score.

Mr. Osborne also seemed unaware of the fact that the Convention had not yet been ratified by the President and seemed relieved to learn of the fact.

I took the occasion during my conversation with Mr. Osborne to inquire as to the accuracy of the statement made to Mr. Phillips by the Persian Minister to the effect that “it was usual for a foreign diplomatic representative to discuss matters which had been submitted to the Foreign Office with members of Parliament and to endeavor to solicit their interest and support; that frequently cases arose when the Foreign Office was unresponsive to a foreign representative’s request and that approach was therefore made in the ordinary routine to members of Parliament.” Mr. Osborne replied that no such procedure was in practice in Great Britain and that the Foreign Office would most certainly object if any foreign representative attempted to negotiate over its head with members of Parliament. He added that no member of Parliament would, of course, ever take action on behalf of a foreign representative in London without first gaining the approval of the Foreign Office.

Wallace Murray
  1. Copies sent to the Embassies in France and Great Britain and to the American delegation to the General Disarmament Conference, Geneva.