500.A14/694
The Persian Minister (Djalal) to the Secretary of State
Your Excellency: In order to prepare a memorandum to serve as a reference for Your Excellency, I venture to put on record the principal points in the conversation which I had the honor of having with you last Thursday.33
Your Excellency maintained that the object in ratifying the Convention of Geneva of 1925 without any reservation was, “to maintain the neutrality of the American Government in a dispute between the Persian Government and that of England, and afterwards, to proceed with drafting another convention with reference to the arms traffic, favorable to Persia; and that in case of making a reservation in favor of Persia, in order to maintain our neutrality we had to make the reservation in favor of England as well.” Whereupon I pointed out that England does not have, and never has had, any coastal territory on any side of the Persian Gulf to give her a single claim of sovereign rights in the Persian Gulf.
For imperialistic motives she thrust herself in the Persian Gulf at the time when Persia was weak, forcing and inducing by all possible means, certain sheikhs along the Southern coast of the Gulf, and in the islands in the Gulf, to enter into treaty relations with her to the detriment of the sovereign rights of Persia. On the other hand, the territory all along the Northern coast, together with numerous islands scattered throughout the Gulf, is Persian territory. Therefore, to give England any sovereign right, much less to put her on an equal footing with Persia, is wholly unjustifiable and incomprehensible; and to ratify a treaty which is purposely designed to encroach on Persian sovereign rights in the Persian Gulf, will show inexcusable partiality to the imperialistic motives of England.
Furthermore, to put the Persian Gulf (more than half of its coast constituting Persian territory; with numerous islands scattered all over the Gulf, all properly organized, with customs houses established in all ports; with regular naval communication; and a navy of the most modern type to control the Gulf waters) on the same footing with the Red Sea (both coasts of which are inhabited by a semi-savage people, without proper authority, navy, or even customs houses) by placing it in a special zone, is not only a gross injustice but insulting to the Persian people and Government.
Such a crafty convention is made purposely, no doubt, to give England her desired ends. Knowing that the Persian Government would never submit to such a humiliation by signing the Convention [Page 472] in which the Persian Gulf is placed in a prohibited zone, and there being no other signatory power which may have an interest in the Persian Gulf or have a navy to control the arms traffic, this function and duty will automatically fall to the British Government, who will alone control the Persian Gulf under the pretension of having the mandate of all the Governments. Such humiliation has even been spared to the African states such as Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Ethiopia, etc., which are exempted from the prohibited zone in the Geneva Convention.
A few weeks ago, when, under your suggestion, I discussed with Mr. Green the unjustifiability of putting the Persian Gulf in the prohibited zone, the latter remarked that it was necessitated and justified by the fact that the Southern coast is inhabited by semi-savage Arabs. Whereupon I observed, “Then why are the African coast and port of Alexandria not included in the zone?” Mr. Green replied that the Egyptian people are all civilized. When I proved to him that the scale of civilization of the Egyptian tribes, is lower than that of the inhabitants of the Southern coast of the Persian Gulf, Mr. Green observed that since the waters of the Alexandria port were under British control, there was no necessity for such a step. Thereupon I retorted, “Now we have touched the point! Wherever it is under British control, no matter how savage may be the inhabitants, it should be exempted from the prohibited zone; but wherever it is not already controlled by England, in order to place it under her domination, it should be included in the prohibited zone.”
As I mentioned to you, in spite of the fact that Persia has in her possession all possible means of controlling the Gulf, Persia is ready to cooperate with England in controlling the arms traffic in the Gulf, on the condition that the Persian Gulf be removed from the prohibited zone.
The latest report from our representative at the League of Nations34 is to the effect that the League of Nations Committee,35 including the American representative,36 voted for the revision of the Geneva [Convention]. They also made certain alterations in the Convention which were approved by the American representative on the Committee. One of the alterations was with reference to the prohibited zone, the Committee proposing that it should be confined to the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, and that the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman be exempted from the prohibited zone. They proposed [Page 473] further that control of arms traffic in the Persian Gulf should be left to an arrangement or agreement between Persia and England.
That is the decision of the League of Nations Committee in which your representative has participated, and which he has approved.
Such being the case, as I have mentioned above, I am sure Your Excellency will agree that the ratification of the Geneva Convention without reservation not only will be interpreted as support of English imperialistic motives and aggression in Persian waters and territory, but will also strengthen the validity of the Geneva Convention in the eyes of the world. And England, finding her position so strengthened, will refuse to replace that convention by the one which you have in mind.
I and my Government are sure that such is not the intention of the American Government, especially under the Presidency of Mr. Roosevelt, who has done and is doing a great work for the freedom of all nations. The President’s action in renouncing the American treaty rights in Cuba,37 Haiti,38 and other South American countries, and giving them complete freedom and satisfaction, are shining examples of that fact.
In the course of the conversation Your Excellency also mentioned that as some other Governments have ratified the Convention without reservation, making a reservation on the part of the United States would be an exception to the rule. As I remarked verbally, those who ratified the Convention without reservation did so without knowing the real facts and without realizing the injustice which they were doing to Persian national rights. When they heard the complaint and explanation of the Persian representative in the League of Nations, they gave their approval and consent to the revision of the Convention.
But the case is quite different with your Government. Your Government is aware of the Persian complaints and the injustice that is designed in drafting the Convention against Persian Sovereign rights: and your representative in the Committee of the League of Nations has agreed and approved, as I mentioned above, the recommendation of the Committee for a revision, and exclusion of the Persian Gulf and that of Oman, from the prohibited zone.
Therefore, to ratify the Convention without reservation will give the impression to the whole world, not only of deliberate action on the part of your Government against neutrality, but of deliberate backing of the Imperialistic designs and motives of the English Government.
[Page 474]I sincerely hope that Your Excellency will, as you promised, explain all these facts to His Excellency Mr. Roosevelt, and prove to him that the only just course lies in signing the ratification with the reservation already passed in the Senate, with unanimity, which demonstrated to the world the sense of justice of the American people.
Availing myself [etc.]
- See memorandum by the Secretary of State, August 9, supra. ↩
- Colonel Ali Khan Riazi.↩
- Presumably the Committee for the Regulation of the Trade in and Private and State Manufacture of Arms and Implements of War, General Disarmament Conference. For minutes of meeting, July 2, see League of Nations, Conference for the Reduction and Limitation of Armaments, Conference Documents, vol. iii, pp. 896–901.↩
- Hugh R. Wilson.↩
- For text of treaty, see vol. v , section under Cuba entitled “Treaty of Relations Between the United States and Cuba, Signed May 29, 1934.”↩
- For correspondence concerning the Agreement of August 7, 1983, see Foreign Relations, 1933, vol. v, pp. 691 ff.↩