The Department of State has learned of the likelihood that the Council of the League of Nations would not consult the United A States in the case of Iraq but would assume that Great Britain as mandatory Power had already done so or would do so and would see that all interests in the Iraq mandate, whether inherent, expressed or implied, were properly considered.

The Department of State has asked the Embassy to inquire of the Foreign Office as to whether the United States Government is correct in assuming that it is to be consulted by the British Government with respect to the conditions under which Iraq is to be administered upon the termination of the "special relations" between that country and Great Britain. I should be grateful if you would let me know the views of the Foreign Office in this matter in order that the Embassy may communicate them to the Department of State.

Letter of April 1, 1932, from the Head of the Eastern Department of the British Foreign Office to the First Secretary of the American Embassy at London

In your letter of March 1st . . . you raised the question of consultation with the United States Government regarding the conditions under which Iraq is to be administered upon the cessation of her mandatory relationship with Great Britain.

In our opinion Articles 6 and 7 of the Tripartite Convention signed in London on January 9th, 1930, set out quite clearly what the position of the United States is in connexion with the termination of the mandatory régime in Iraq. Article 6 reads as follows:

"No modification of the special relations existing between His Britannic Majesty and His Majesty the King of Iraq, as defined in Article 1 (other than the termination of such special relations as contemplated in Article 7 of the present Convention) shall make any change in the rights of the United States as defined in this Convention, unless such change has been assented to by the Government of the United States.”

Under this Article the assent of the United States is required before the rights of the United States, as defined in the Convention, can be affected by any modification in the special relations existing between His Britannic Majesty and His Majesty the King of Iraq, but the termination of these special relations, which is the case now under consideration, is expressly excepted from the provisions of this Article, and dealt with in Article 7.

Paragraph 1 of Article 7 then provides that the termination of these special relations shall cause the Convention of 1930 to cease to have any effect, and the second paragraph lays down what is to be the position when this event happens. Paragraph 2 of Article 7 reads as follows:

"On the termination of the said special relations, negotiations shall be entered into between the United States and Iraq for the conclusion of a treaty in regard to their future relations and the

rights of the nationals of each country in the territories of the other. Pending the conclusion of such an agreement, the nationals, vessels, goods and aircraft of the United States and all goods in transit across Iraq, originating in or destined for the United States, shall receive in Iraq the most-favoured-nation treatment; provided that the benefit of this provision cannot be claimed in respect of any matter in regard to which the nationals, vessels, goods and aircraft or Iraq, and all goods in transit across the United States, originating in or destined for Iraq, do not receive in the United States the mostfavoured-nation treatment, it being understood that Iraq shall not be entitled to claim the treatment which is accorded by the United States to the commerce of Cuba under the provisions of the Commercial Convention concluded by the United States and Cuba on the 11th day of December, 1902, or any other commercial convention which may hereafter be concluded by the United States with Cuba or to the commerce of the United States with any of its dependencies and the Panama Canal Zone under existing or future laws, and that the United States shall not be entitled to claim any special treatment which may be accorded by Iraq to the nationals or commerce of neighbouring States exclusively."

To put it shortly, it provides for two things, (a) for the commencement of negotiations between the United States and Iraq for the conclusion of a treaty in regard to their future relations, and the rights of the nationals of each country in the territory of the other, and (b) subject to certain conditions, for the grant of most-favourednation treatment in Iraq to the nationals, vessels, goods and aircraft of the United States, pending the conclusion of such agreement. While, therefore, it appears that the rights of the United States in this eventuality are fully defined and safeguarded by the provisions of Article 7 of the Convention, and that these provisions do not confer on the United States any rights to be consulted as to the obligations which the League of Nations may require Iraq to undertake as conditions of the termination of the mandatory régime, and of her election as a member of the League of Nations, I am authorized by the Secretary of State to let you know that His Majesty's Government will be happy to keep the United States Government informed of the progress of events in regard to the termination of the mandatory régime in Iraq. Let me first explain exactly what is at present under consideration. It was the belief of His Majesty's Government that the mandatory régime would automatically terminate with the admission of Iraq to membership of the League of Nations. They regard present conditions in Iraq as justifying the termination of the mandatory régime and have therefore declared their intention of supporting her candidature for membership of the League at the Assembly of the League in September next. The Council of the League have ruled, however, that, before the candidature of Iraq for membership can be considered by the Assembly, it is for the Council to decide whether the mandatory régime can in fact be terminated. To assist it in coming to this decision, it asked the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League to advise, first as to the conditions which must in general be fulfilled before a mandatory régime can be brought to an end, and afterwards as to the application of those general conditions to the special case of Iraq. On the basis of the re

149810-32- -2

ports by the Permanent Mandates Commission the Council on January 28th last declared itself in principle prepared to pronounce the termination of the mandatory régime as from the date of Iraq's admission to the League, provided that Iraq first gave certain assurances. The purpose of these assurances is solely to discharge the responsibilities of the League, as trustee, towards racial, linguistic and religious minorities in Iraq and towards legitimate foreign interests in the country. They are still in process of elaboration by direct negotiation between the Council of the League and the Government of Iraq on the basis of the reports of the Permanent Mandates Commission to which I have already referred. Copies of those reports together with a copy of the Resolution adopted by the Council of the League on January 28th last are enclosed herein, and His Majesty's Government will be glad to communicate to the United States Government for their information copies of the actual assurances as soon as it is possible for them to do so.

Your Government are already aware of the terms of the AngloIraqi Treaty of Alliance which was signed on June 30th, 1930 and of which a copy as published in the Treaty Series (Cmd. 3797) was communicated to your Embassy on March 2nd, 1931. The Treaty will of course only enter into force when once Iraq has become a member of the League of Nations.

Aide-Mémoire of July 8, 1932, from the American Embassy at London to the British Foreign Office

The Government of the United States appreciates the offer of the British Government to furnish it with copies of the assurances which Iraq is to furnish to the Council of the League of Nations as a preliminary to the termination of the mandatory régime and entrance into the League of Nations. From information which it has already received from other sources the American Government is satisfied that these assurances, to the benefits of which American nationals will be entitled under the provisions of Article 7 of the Tripartite Convention of January 9, 1930, will afford adequate protection to legitimate American interests in Iraq upon the termination of the existing special relations. Accordingly this Government considers that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the discussions which the Embassy at London has undertaken with the British authorities concerning the right of the United States to be consulted with regard to the conditions under which Iraq is to be administered upon the termination of the mandatory relationship. At the same time the American Government desires to place on record the declaration that it cannot fully accept the interpretation of the position of the United States vis-à-vis Iraq as set forth in Mr. Rendel's letter of April 1, 1932. Thus, while the American Government concedes that by the terms of the Tripartite Convention it waived its right to consultation with respect to the actual termination of the mandate, it considers that the right was retained to be consulted with respect to the conditions under which Iraq is to be administered upon such termination. This Government is therefore of the opinion that in

addition to the most-favored-nation treatment which, by virtue of the provisions of the Tripartite Convention of January 9, 1930, it will enjoy in Iraq upon the termination of the special relations, it is also entitled to a voice in the determination of the conditions upon which that most-favored-nation treatment is to be based.

Accordingly the American Government desires to make a full reservation of its position in this matter and, with a view to avoiding any possible misconception which may arise in the future, to make clear that its action in refraining from insisting upon a fulfillment of its rights in the case of Iraq is not to be construed as an abandonment of the principle established in 1921 that the approval of the United States is essential to the validity of any determination which may be reached regarding mandated territories.

HUMANITARIAN

EXTRADITION

TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND GREECE 1

1

Ratification of the treaty between the United States and Greece, providing for the extradition of fugitives from justice, signed at Athens on May 6, 1931, were exchanged at the Department of State on November 1, 1932, by the Secretary of State and the Greek Minister at Washington.

HEALTH

INTERNATIONAL SANITARY CONVENTION

DECLARATION OF QUARANTINE BY THE NETHERLANDS AGAINST THE

HAWAIIAN ISLANDS

By a note dated October 13, 1932, the Netherland Chargé d'Affaires at Washington informed the Secretary of State that he had received a telegraphic message from the Minister for Foreign Affairs at The Hague, that the Netherland Government had declared the port of Honolulu and the Islands of Hawaii as plague-infected.

A reply to the above-mentioned note was made on November 2, 1932, as follows:

"Referring further to your note No. 3282 of October 13, 1932, stating that the Netherland Government has declared the port of Honolulu and the Hawaiian Islands as plague infected, I now quote herein for such action as may be deemed appropriate excerpts of a letter dated October 21, 1932, received from the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury:

'No plague has occurred in Honolulu or on the island of Oahu, on which Honolulu is situated, since July 12, 1910, and therefore this major port of entry for the Hawaiian Islands is, and has been for many years past, free from plague or other infectious disease coming within the purview of the International Sanitary Convention of Paris. While bubonic plague does exist in two rather well defined rural sugar plantation areas, one being on the island of Hawaii and the other being on the island of Maui, this disease has not occurred in the small seaports of Hilo and Kahului, which respectively serve

'See Bulletin No. 35, August, 1932, p. 8.