500.A14/705
The Minister in Persia ( Hornibrook ) to the Secretary of State
[Received September 20.]
Sir: I have the honor to report that on August 13th, Mirza Mohsen Khan Rais, Chief of the Treaty Division of the Foreign Office, called at the Legation by appointment and announced that he had been authorized by the Minister for Foreign Affairs to discuss the Persian position in regard to the Arms Traffic Convention of 1925.
Mr. Rais stated that when the Convention was signed in 1925 the Persian Delegate to the League39 had not only protested against the formulation of the Convention in the terms then adopted, but had confirmed such protest by leaving the session of the League at which [Page 475] the same was considered. “Persia”, said Mr. Rais, “had never recognized the Convention; had never signed it, and never would sign it in its present form or permit the same to be applied in the Persian Gulf in so far as concerned the provisions making Persian vessels subject to search.” He added that Persia was much interested in the objects sought to be attained by the Convention and was thoroughly in sympathy with its expressed purpose to restrain the traffic in arms with the Persian tribes. He further pointed out that Great Britain was also obviously interested in the traffic in arms in the Gulf on account of the desire of the latter to prevent the introduction of arms to the disaffected elements in India. He also made the significant observation that the many reservations attached to the Convention by the nations which have ratified the same have so emasculated the Convention that it will never have any force or effect.
Mr. Rais then asserted that when the Persian Minister interceded with “friends of Persia” in the United States, including Senator William H. King of Utah, it was done to safeguard Persia’s interests in the Gulf through the reservation which was passed by the United States Senate. He added that the Persian Foreign Office had recently been informed by the Persian Minister in Washington that the latter had been given to understand that President Roosevelt has expressed himself as dissatisfied with the form in which the reservation had been passed by the Senate because of the fact that it took cognizance of the rights of only one nation in the Persian Gulf. The Persian Minister also advised the Foreign Office that his informant gave him to understand that such an expression of opinion from the President was not to be interpreted as indicating that the President raised any question as to the rights of Persia in that sector.
Mr. Rais then expressed his gratification because of the moral support given to Persia as a result of the action taken by the United States Senate in adopting the reservation and made the rather amazing request on behalf of the Minister for Foreign Affairs that I cable the Department expressing the very great importance which Persia attaches to the maintenance of the status quo in respect to the Convention and of the hope entertained by his country that the American Government would lend the same moral support to Persia’s rights in the Gulf which had already been accorded by the United States Senate.
In reply to my suggestion that a matter of this character could be presented with more clarity in a regular despatch than by cable, Mr. Rais asserted that as the President would return shortly from his vacation, it was the intention of the Persian Minister to take the matter up with the Secretary of State immediately after the date of his return and therefore he very much desired that I should cable the views of the Foreign Office on this subject to the Department. Several times this request was repeated during the course of the interview [Page 476] but I declined to accede to the same on the ground that these views could perhaps best be presented by the Persian Minister in Washington and that I had heretofore been specifically instructed by the Department to refrain from using the cable in reporting matters in connection with the Senate reservation to the Arms Traffic Convention.
The purpose of the interview was manifestly predicated on the idea of convincing me as to the legality of the Persian claims in the Gulf, explaining their reasons for opposition to the Arms Traffic Convention of 1925, justifying to some extent at least the inexcusable conduct of Djalal in pressing these claims before members of the Senate, and, if possible, to obtain from the Legation a friendly cable to the Department which might tend to minimize the Djalal incident and perhaps even enlist the support of the Department behind the claims of Persia in the Gulf. In other words, to nominate the American Minister to Persia as Assistant Persian Minister to Washington with instructions to draw upon the United States Government for all cable charges.
Frequent references by him to my own friendship for Persia and the major role which Senator King played in obtaining the reservation, together with what was tantamount to a request that I personally intercede in the matter, leaves no room for doubt in my mind as to the purpose which prompted Mr. Rais to visit the Chancery.
In reply to the veiled defense of the acts of the Persian Minister to Washington in connection with the passage of the Senate reservation, and in the absence of any specific and satisfactory explanation for his pernicious political activity, I informed Mr. Rais that the Djalal incident had quite naturally left rather an unfortunate impression with the Department; that the criticism of the latter’s action was not based upon any question of sovereignty over the Persian Gulf, but solely upon one of the propriety of approaching members of the United States Senate on this subject; that while I would personally be only too glad to be of service in clearing up any misunderstanding between my own Government and Persia, that the questions raised in the present interview must of necessity be handled in Washington. I therefore promised to send to the Department by the next regular pouch a full and complete report of the views which he had expressed on behalf of the Foreign Office.
Respectfully yours,
- Prince Arfa, Mirza Riza Khan; see League of Nations, Records of the Sixth Assembly: Plenary Meetings, Text of the Debates, pp. 55–56.↩