761.91/4–2249: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Embassy in Iran 1
387. In stating, as Dept thinks correct, that Treaty of 1921 (including Art 6 and Annex 2) “has not been superseded by subsequent treaty concluded by the parties” (para 1 (a) urtel 543 Apr. 22), Dept did not state that relations and mutual obligations Iran and USSR were unaffected by their signing Charter and becoming members UN. As stated in final para Deptel 348, Apr. 18, Dept regards Charter obligations as having important bearing on Iran-USSR relations, including difference of views over Art 6, 1921 Treaty. Deptel 637, July 8, 19482 shld be studied in its entirety. It is clear, in view of 1921 Treaty and UN Charter, that USSR, as stated in para 1 (a), [Page 514] Deptel 628, July 5, 1948,3 is not permitted “unilaterally to introduce forces into Iran”. This conclusion, however, does not result in abrogation or supersession Art 6 or remainder 1921 Treaty.
Ref para 1(b) urtel 543, Apr 22, Dept believes one or more of three conditions mentioned in Art 6 itself cld conceivably come into existence in future, but with no exclusive Sov right to determine their existence. However, US wld maintain that fourth condition (specified in Annex 2) has now become impossible of realization; thus, Dept’s position is that co-existence of all four necessary conditions will not be possible.
Dept agrees ur phrase “inapplicable validity” (para 2, urtel 543) wld be difficult for comprehension by world opinion. Necessary distinction between “validity” and “applicability” not intended suggest issue of Sov right unilaterally introduce troops into Iran is open to serious debate.
In event of need to present our point of view in SC and to world public opinion, desirable approach, presumably, wld be to lead off with statement that fact situation (conditions claimed by Sovs), does not and cannot exist and that therefore, treaty cannot be applied. We might next point out that under any circumstances, signing of UN Charter by both parties prohibits either party from exercising unilateral right to introduce troops into other’s territory and any Sov claim to such prerogative is clearly indefensible.
“Inapplicable validity formula” not inspired by Brit legal analysis. We do, however, share your concern over indications in some quarters of nostalgic Brit propensity to return to 1907 regime and possibility of legalistic approach to 1921 Treaty by Brit as means of promoting revival of spheres-of-influence regime.
- The Department repeated this telegram to London and Moscow on May 2.↩
- Foreign Relations, 1948, vol. v, Part 1, p. 158.↩
- Foreign Relations, 1948, vol. v, Part 1, p. 155.↩