Papers relating to the foreign relations of the United States, 1931, Volume I

511.4A6/424: Telegram

The Acting Secretary of State to the Minister in Switzerland (Wilson)

Washington, July 26, 1931—midnight.

85. Your 94, July 21, 11 a.m.¹¹ While the Department entertains no doubt that this Government’s refusal to recognize the regime in any country can not be affected by its mere signature of or adherence to a multilateral treaty to which the unrecognized regime is a party, the Department considers it desirable in order to avoid any possible misconstruction of its position to make the reservations incorporated in the narcotics convention. Similar reservations were made in the following conventions which were signed by the United States and the Soviet:

(1) The International Sanitary Convention, signed at Paris, June 21, 1926.¹²

(2) Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, signed at London, May 31, 1929.¹³

(3) The International Load Line Convention, signed at London, July 5, 1930.¹⁴

The only treaty signed by both countries since the conclusion of the Sanitary Convention which does not contain the reservation in question is the Convention for the Suppression of Counterfeiting Currency, signed at Geneva on April 20, 1929,¹⁵ and the omission of the reservation in that case apparently resulted from a failure to consider the question of reservations. Any possible technical implication of recognition which might be alleged to be involved in the adherence by an unrecognized régime to a treaty to which the United States is a party but which the unrecognized regime did not sign would appear to be too tenuous to warrant even an explanatory declaration or reservation. But when the United States and the unrecognized régime both sign a convention or when the United States signs a convention which is left open for subsequent signature as is the case in the Narcotics Convention under consideration, the Department considers it desirable to accompany its signature by a reservation of the kind incorporated in the Narcotics Convention.

With respect to your statement that the raising of this question may cause difficulties in the Senate, it may be observed that two of the treaties containing this reservation which have been submitted to the Senate have received the approval of that body and a third treaty is now awaiting the action of the Senate. With reference to your statement that Russia might refuse to sign or ratify a treaty containing the reservation in question, the Department observes that since the reservation is merely declaratory of the well-known position of the United States, it could not reasonably be objected to by the Soviet régime unless that regime questioned the correctness of the statements contained in the reservation.

With respect to the possibility of embarrassment referred to in the conclusion of the second paragraph of your telegram, the Department informs you that the suggested situation could not arise since Section 6 of the Narcotic Drugs Import and Export Act¹⁶ provides an absolute control over shipments of narcotic drugs from the United States and prohibits such shipments except when authorized by a permit from the Bureau of Narcotics and such a permit is issued only on the production of satisfactory evidence that the products to which the permit relates shall be used only for medical or scientific purposes.

The adoption of your suggestion that the reservations be expunged would seem likely to raise the question whether the United States by withdrawing the reservations had taken a position contrary to that declared by the reservation, and might give rise to undesirable public discussion.

For the reasons herein stated the Department considers it inadvisable to adopt your suggestion.

Castle

11. Not printed.
12. Foreign Relations, 1926, vol. i, p. 177.
13. Department of State Treaty Series No. 910.
14. Foreign Relations, 1930, vol. i, p. 261.
15. Ibid., 1929, vol. i, p. 409.
16. Approved May 26, 1922; 42 Stat 596.