Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1923, Volume II

467.11 W 89/25: Telegram

The High Commissions at Constantinople (Bristol) to the Secretary of State

[Paraphrase]

Constantinople, September 15, 1923—3 p.m.
[Received 10:25 p.m.]

240. Your telegram via Lausanne 149, August 8, 2 p.m.

1. Report from Barnes³⁷ states that he had conversation at Angora with Ismet on September 2. Barnes inquired about the return of Mustafa Cherif to Constantinople from Switzerland where he has been taking medical treatment. Although Ismet did not know when Cherif would return he expected to learn soon. Ismet inquired about date and place for resuming negotiations. In reply Barnes said that we had contemplated taking the negotiations up again at Constantinople on account of the difficulties of telegraphic communication and housing at Angora and in view of conversations between Turlington and Cherif. Barnes gave it as his opinion that negotiations could be completed by the end of September. Then Ismet repeated the reasons which had been given at Lausanne for the unwillingness of Turkey to enter into an engagement concerning the settlement of our claims prior to the presentation of the names of the claimants and an indication in detail of the character of the claims. He thought the new negotiations would bring no more results than those at Lausanne in the absence of the desired information, but he felt certain that with such information there need be no difficulty or delay in arriving at an arrangement satisfactory to both the American and Turkish Governments.

2. No confirmation has been received with respect to the provisional arrangement to have the discussions resumed September 20 at Constantinople. When Shaw talked with Munir and Nousret September 11 it was still uncertain when Mustafa Cherif would return. I believe, however, that it would not be very difficult to arrange for an early beginning of informal discussions here between experts, possibly exploratory in nature. This would prepare the way for the formal negotiations and for the signing of a convention or the exchange of letters between myself and Ismet.

3. As soon as possible after the first meetings with the Turkish experts I shall offer definite recommendations with respect to the conduct of negotiations. However, I submit the following preliminary observations after consultation with Shaw and Turlington:

(a) I think it likely that the Turks would readily agree to the method of procedure which you suggest in paragraph 6 of your telegram under reference. The complete absence of the suggestion that political recognition or assent to the abolition of capitulations are things to be bargained for, as well as the entire freedom of the proposal from the savor of insistence upon the claiming of rights by virtue of the contribution which we made to the victory of the Allies over Turkey, would not fail of favorable notice by the Turks. Of course I recognize, as doubtless the Department does, that it is important not to allow the Turks to gain the impression at the beginning of the renewed negotiations that we have given up the principles we stood for during the Lausanne discussions. It is necessary, however, that we make substantial progress in a short time, and we must consider the fact that it is a characteristic of the Turkish mind to accommodate itself much more readily to the settlement of specific cases upon their special facts than to the acceptance of general principles which may be applied to categories of cases. We might be able in the discussion of specific cases, carefully chosen by the Department, not only to reassure the Turks with respect to the character of our claims, but also to set up precedents by which other cases in which the same principles were involved might be disposed of.

(b) It might not be advisable for us to propose the above-mentioned method of procedure at the opening of the new discussions here, in view of the strong position which we took at Lausanne. It is certain that the Turks will insist at the beginning of discussions that detailed information as to the character of our claims is necessary. Obviously it is not appropriate for us to give the names of claimants before the Department has approved their claims and prepared them for presentation. However, if we knew the number, character, and extent of the claims which the Department considers as prima facie well founded I think we could effectively use such information. Conceivably with such information the Turks might be responsive to suggestions for the payment of a lump sum or for an agreement similar to the one we made with the British in 1910.³⁸ There is even the possibility that the Turks might offer a proposal just like that suggested by the Department in its telegram under reference. In giving instructions on this point it would be convenient to have reference made to Turlington’s memoranda numbered 2 and 47.³⁹

(c) I believe the difficulty with respect to the presentation of claims of persons of Turkish origin who have become naturalized American citizens can be passed over without a formal agreement. It may be necessary, however, for us to give informal assurances either that we will not present such claims or that we will not press them if we do present them.

4. We are waiting for instructions before making contact with the Turkish experts.

Bristol

37. Maynard B. Barnes, delegate at Angora of the American High Commission at Constantinople.
38. >,Foreign Relations, 1911, p. 266.
39. Not printed.