761.91/97
The Secretary of State to the British Ambassador (Geddes)
Excellency: I beg to acknowledge the receipt of the British Embassy’s note of September 27, 1923, which presents the question of the present validity of the Treaty between Russia and Persia, signed at Turcomanchai in 1828, and also of the note of October 25, dealing with the legal basis of the British Government’s attitude in the matter of the taxation of British subjects in Persia. In the former communication, in adverting to the correspondence between His Britannic Majesty’s Government and the British representative in Teheran, reference is made to the particular consideration which has been given to the following three points:—
- (1)
- Whether the Russo-Persian Treaty of 1921 specifically cancels the 1828 Treaty.
- (2)
- If so, whether His Majesty’s Government recognize the validity of the treaty entered into by a government which has not, hitherto, been recognized de jure.
- (3)
- Whether His Majesty’s Government can be deprived of a right by an instrument to which they are not a party and in respect of which they were not consulted.
At the conclusion of the Embassy’s communication this Government’s attention is called to the suggestion of the British Minister in Teheran that if the United States or other Powers are still inclined to base rights upon the Treaty of Turcomanchai the position of this and of other Governments might possibly be prejudiced should the British Government acquiesce in the view that the Treaty in question is no longer in effect. In these circumstances your Government has courteously inquired whether the point of view with regard to the Treaty of Turcomanchai which you have outlined in some detail represents the attitude of the United States Government, adding that Lord Curzon has in mind the desirability of the interested Powers offering, if possible, a united front in this important question in case of a challenge by the Persian Government.
In discussing the question whether the Treaty of 1921 between Persia and Soviet Russia specifically cancels the Treaty of Turcomanchai it is indicated to be the view of His Britannic Majesty’s Government that “the intention, as confirmed by practice, was that the cancellation applied to all Treaties concluded by the Tsarist system of Government.” In discussing the second point mentioned above you refer to the de facto recognition of the present Russian regime by His Britannic Majesty’s Government, the conclusion of the Anglo-Russian agreement, and the recognition by the Allied Powers of the right of the Soviet authorities to sign the Straits Convention [Page 573] in the Treaty of Lausanne, concluding the discussion of Point (3) with the statement that in the view of your Government it would be wrong to base any claim against the Persian Government on the supposed continuance in force of the Treaty between Russia and Persia of 1828.
There can be little doubt of the evident intent and desire of the parties to the Treaty of 1921 between Persia and the Soviet authorities to abrogate the Treaty of Peace, including the supplementary Treaty of Commerce, concluded between Russia and Persia at Turcomanchai on February 10–22, 1828, in so far as these Treaties, in the words of the Perso-Soviet agreement, may prejudice the rights of the people of Persia. While this Government has not felt itself obligated to take formal cognizance of the action of the Soviet authorities with regard to the Treaties of Turcomanchai, it does not consider that acquiescence by His Britannic Majesty’s Government in the present attitude of the Persian and Soviet authorities with respect to these Treaties would afford any ground for objection on the part of this Government. Nor would this action by the British Government appear to be calculated to prejudice the position of this Government or of its nationals in Persia in view of the firm bases, other than the Treaty of Turcomanchai, upon which such rights rest.
With regard to the desirability of offering a united front in case of a challenge by the Persian Government in this question, I may state that the Embassy’s communication does not appear definitely to outline the common position which your Government would suggest might be adopted, unless it be that which you indicate your Government has taken as described in the instructions to the British representative in Teheran.
If there should be any such challenge on the part of the Persian Government, a new situation would be presented. Meanwhile, this Government, while solicitous to preserve the rights necessary to the proper protection of its citizens and interests in Persia, desires to avoid a course of action which would result in obstructing the efforts of the Persian Government to put its house in order and particularly to establish its finances on a sound basis.
Accept [etc.]