Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, Africa and South Asia, Volume XI, Part 1

771.00/4–3053

The President of the Committee of Control ( Panafieu ) to the Chargé at Tangier ( Witman )¹

[Translation]

confidential

Tangier , April 25, 1953.

Mr. Chargé d’Affaires and Dear Colleague: On instructions from my Government, I have the honor to inform you that the Note which you kindly transmitted to the Committee of Control on March 3 evokes the following observations:

The Protocol of November 10, 1952 is an agreement in the sense of Article 8 of the Anglo-French Agreement of August 31, 1945, and its definitive character, counting from the day of its adoption, results from the fact that it was approved unanimously by the Committee of Control on November 10, 1952. The system organized under the Agreement of August 31, 1945 excludes not only reservations upon signature (for there would not be unanimity), but upon ratification or adherence, since the agreement results from the single unanimous vote of the Committee of Control. In these circumstances, the claim of the Government of the United States, a posteriori, to make reservations—which furthermore would not have been admitted even at the time of the vote on the Protocol—can, therefore, only be rejected in the most formal manner.

It is also desirable to refer to the end of the first paragraph of the Note of March 3, indicating that abstention requested retroactively would not defeat the rule of unanimity provided for in the Agreement of August 31, 1945, the United States not wishing to veto the entire Protocol. In this connection, I must make the observation that the United States does not have any right of veto after a vote recorded in the Committee of Control.

Insofar as the second part of the Note of March 3 is concerned, it should be stated that the United States having agreed de facto to participate in the provisional regime of Tangier by taking part in the Committee of Control, such participation entails consequences which it is not in its power to modify. In effect the alternative is the following: Either the United States participates in this regime under the conditions reserved to all states members of the Committee of Control, and in equality with its partners, or, going back upon the fact of its participation, it should withdraw completely from the organization.

The four points enumerated in the American Note evoke the following remarks:

1) The position of the United States in Tangier is one resulting from international law. Its rights are those of any state in general, and of any state signatory of the Act of Algeciras² in particular.

2) Either the representative of the United States takes part in an ordinary diplomatic capacity, or else he presents himself as the representative of the United States under the provisional Statute.

3) Concerning the establishment, authority and powers of the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the United States, the decision of the International Court of Justice of August 27, 1952,³ interpreting the Treaty of 1836 between the United States and Morocco, and the body of the treaty rights of the United States, has clearly established that American consular jurisdiction in Morocco was reduced to jurisdiction over litigations between Americans in the cases listed by the Act of Algeciras. On this point my Government believes it should remind you of the necessity, as regards consular jurisdiction, to respect the decision of the Court.

4) As for the rights which the United States and their nationals hold under treaties, custom and usage, the International Court of Justice ruled in its decision of August 27, 1952 that the United States had no rights in Morocco resulting either from treaties other than that of 1836, or from custom or usage.

Please accept [etc.]

F. de Panafieu

1. This note was an enclosure to despatch 459 of Apr. 30, 1953 from Tangier. (771.00/4–3053)
2. This Act, of which the United States was signatory on Apr. 7, 1906, affirmed the independence and integrity of Morocco and asserted the principle of economic liberty without inequality in respect to the treatment of the signatories therein. For documentation regarding the Act, see Foreign Relations, 1906, Part 2, pp. 1470 ff.
3. “Case Concerning Rights of Nationals of the United States of America in Morocco, Judgement of August 27th, 1952: ICJ Reports 1952,” p. 176. For an explanation of this case, consult the Department of State Bulletin, Oct. 20, 1952, pp. 620–623. For further information on this case, see the editorial note, p. 602.