regard to the acquisition of treaty-alien status, as is accorded to nationals of all other foreign states. Treaty-alien visas can, under the law, be accorded only to nationals of those states which have present existing treaties with the United States, negotiated before May 26, 1924, and specifically according to such nationals the right to enter the United States in order to carry on trade between their own country and the United States. Nationals in the United States of those states enjoying most-favored-nation treatment have, furthermore, never been accorded the right of treatyalien status as an inherent part of most-favored-nation treatment. This situation holds true respecting France, Germany, and the great majority of the nations in the world.61 If you think it desirable, you may furthermore utilize the arguments below: (1) Having denounced the United States-Persian and other treaties, Persia obtained the abolition of the capitulations. Only by retaining the treaty with the United States could Persia have kept the treatyalien right for its nationals, a small compensation to Persia for the loss in other respects. In this connection you may remark that, according to the Department's records, only two Persian nationals have requested and obtained visas since 1924 as treaty aliens. You may also state that the question of the status of Persian treaty aliens in the United States at present is not expected to be raised so long as these aliens remain in this country, thus maintaining their original status. (2) An unusual concession has already been made by the United States Government to Persia with the acceptance of a less favorable treatment regarding personal status, etc., than was accorded to Great Britain. (3) The Persian Government has specified, in defining the conditions under which American missionaries might carry on their work in Persia, that such activity should not contravene, inter alia, the "laws and regulations of Persia". Likewise Persian nationals in this country are subject to United States laws and regulations, which apply equally to all foreigners here. KELLOGG [In its instruction No. 654, March 14, 1929, to the Chargé in Persia, the Department of State transmitted a draft treaty of friendship, commerce and establishment for submission to the Persian Government (file No. 711.9111/1). The draft was submitted by the Chargé on April 14 to the Persian Minister of the Court, who remarked "that he hoped nothing would prevent its early conclusion" (file No. 711.9111/2). However, no further negotiations followed.] The Minister in Persia, in his despatch No. 651, July 26, 1928 (not printed), reported his explanations "that the withholding of this particular visa involved no discrimination against Persian nationals," and so "the question might be considered settled"; received August 22. (File No. 791.003/160.) PROPOSED TREATIES OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION 711.9112A/1 : Telegram The Secretary of State to the Minister in Persia (Philip) [Paraphrase] WASHINGTON, May 8, 1928-8 p. m. 39. The Department is undertaking to negotiate with most, if not all, countries outside Latin America treaties of arbitration identical in effect with the treaty with France of February 6, 1928,62 and, where there are no conciliation treaties (the so-called Bryan treaties), treaties of this sort also based upon the treaty with Great Britain of September 15, 1914. The negotiations for these treaties are taking place in Washington. 63 In your opinion, would proposal to negotiate the treaties mentioned above be well received by Government of Persia at present time, and would such a proposal be of service in assisting you in the negotiations for modus vivendi which you are now conducting with Minister of the Court? 64 If you answer affirmatively, when do you think proposal should be made in order to obtain maximum good effect? KELLOGG 711.9112A/3: Telegram The Minister in Persia (Philip) to the Secretary of State [Paraphrase] TEHERAN, June 25, 1928-10 a. m. 65. It is my impression that favorable moment exists now to advance proposal to negotiate treaties of arbitration and conciliation with Persian Government, as mentioned in Department's telegram No. 39, May 8, 8 p. m. PHILIP 711.9112A/7: Telegram The Secretary of State to the Minister in Persia (Philip) [Paraphrase] WASHINGTON, June 29, 1928–6 p. m. 54. Your No. 65, June 25, 10 a. m. Today the Secretary of State handed Persian Minister draft of a proposed treaty of arbitration between the United States and Persia. The provisions of the draft text operate to extend policy of arbitration that was enunciated in the arbitration conventions which were concluded in 1908 with more than twenty other countries. Language used in the draft is identical in effect with that of the treaties of arbitration recently signed with Denmark, Finland, France, Germany and Italy, and with the drafts which have already been submitted to other governments in the general program looking to the extension of these principles. 66 The Secretary of State also handed the Minister a proposed draft of a treaty of conciliation modeled after the so-called "Bryan treaties" which were signed by the United States with many other countries in 1913 and 1914.67 The full texts are being forwarded to you in the next pouch. You may be able to use foregoing advantageously in connection with your negotiations over exchange of notes on personal status and family law jurisdiction. 711.9112/6a KELLOGG The Chief of the Division of Near Eastern Affairs (Shaw) to the Counselor of the Persian Legation (Noury) WASHINGTON, September 23, 1928. MY DEAR MR. NOURY: Referring to your recent inquiry at the Department as to the status of the Treaty Looking to the Advancement of the Cause of General Peace signed at Teheran on February 4, 1914, I beg to inform you that the Department's records reveal the following facts: 68 The ratification of the above Treaty was revised by the Senate of the United States on August 13, 1914, with the following amendments: "Strike out Article IV. Change the title of the next Article so as to make it read Article IV instead of Article V." On February 21, 1922 the Mejliss approved the Treaty with the above amendments made by the Senate and on June 17, 1922 it was ratified by the President of the United States. The President's action in ratifying the Treaty was taken subsequent to the receipt of a communication dated June 9, 1922 addressed to the Department by Mr. Hussein Alai,68 then Persian Minister in Washington, and reading in part as follows: "I... have just been informed that the Treaty approved by the Mejliss has been sent to Paris for His Imperial Majesty the Shah's ratification. It will be forwarded on from there to this Legation, so that the exchange may be effected in Washington." Following the President's ratification, the Department under date of June 26, 1922," replied to the Persian Minister's note of June 9, stating that the Secretary of State was prepared to exchange ratifications at the Minister's convenience. No further communication on this subject appears to have beîn received from Mr. Alai, and the exchange of ratifications of the Treaty under reference was consequently never effected. Sincerely yours, G. HOWLAND SHAW 711.9112A/13: Telegram The Chargé in Persia (Treat) to the Secretary of State [Paraphrase] TEHERAN, December 4, 1928-8 a. m. 90. The Foreign Minister recently brought up question of the treaties of arbitration and conciliation, and although he was reminded that the negotiations were being conducted at Washington he has now sent the Legal Adviser of the Persian Foreign Office with request that following explanations be communicated to Department: 1. For reasons of political nature, which take into particular consideration situation of Persia with regard to British as well as to Russian relations, and also in interest of uniformity, the Persian Government prefers a general clause in a treaty of friendship to separate treaty of arbitration. Persian Government suggests as basis for clause of that sort, to be developed when the negotiations for definitive treaties shall have been inaugurated, a formula similar to that which is now under discussion with Germany. This formula provides for the arbitration of differences arising from interpretation or application of existing or future treaties; the designation of one arbitrator by each Government, a third to be appointed by common accord, or, failing that, by the President of the Permanent Court of the Hague. Copy of this Perso-German draft clause is being sent Department. Persian Government is not averse to a wording which would leave tacitly understood that disputes of a political nature may also be susceptible to arbitration, but at present time is not disposed to accept any specific treaty undertaking of that character. 2. Also for political reasons, the Persian Government prefers to hold over question of a conciliation treaty to a future date; for Not printed. example, until it has concluded and put into effect definitive treaties with Great Britain. The following is situation with regard to negotiations in progress between Persia and other governments for the conclusion of definitive treaties: (1) Treaties with Germany are on point of being signed. (2) I am informed by British Minister that he expects to initiate conversations shortly, and has let it be understood that he has draft proposals to present. (3) French Minister has had preliminary conversations with Foreign Minister. I understand negotiations will soon be started on basis of drafts furnished by both the French and Persian Governments. (4) Italian Minister has not yet received drafts but has been instructed to begin pourparlers. (5) Belgian Government is examining results of negotiations which were begun some months ago, and is awaiting conclusion of Perso-German treaties. (6) Our delay in starting negotiations has not worked any harm as yet, I think, but I believe that some gesture should be made in near future.70 TREAT 70 Further negotiations did not result in the signing of an arbitration or conciliation treaty. |