Powers at the same moment, but if the Senate approves the treaty which we have made with Germany we shall endeavor to negotiate similar treaties with other Powers and such other Powers will not obtain unconditional most-favored-nation treatment unless they conclude with us treaties similar to the one with Germany. In the same line I may observe, recurring to what I have said above with regard to national treatment of shipping, that the provisions of the treaty with Germany for such national treatment will not accrue to the benefit of other Powers with whom we do not make, or have not made, a treaty similar to the treaty with Germany and I may repeat that our existing commercial treaties contain provisions, so far as they go, for national treatment of shipping. In short, if the treaty with Germany is approved, we shall be in a position to conclude negotiations with other Powers upon the same basis and in this way most effectively to remove whatever discriminations may now exist to the prejudice of the United States. I remain [etc.] CHARLES E. HUGHES GREAT BRITAIN NEGOTIATIONS TO ENSURE BY TREATY THE RIGHTS OF THE UNITED STATES IN CENTRAL AFRICAN TERRITORIES UNDER MANDATE1 800.01 M 31/186: Telegram BRITISH The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Great Britain (Kellogg) WASHINGTON, February 16, 1924—7 p. m. 39. Your despatch 3181, November 30, 1923,2 regarding mandates. You will acknowledge appropriately Lord Curzon's note of November 26, 1923, and reply as follows: "The Government of the United States understands that, except as to the text of the preambles, there is now complete agreement between it and His Majesty's Government with respect to the terms of the proposed treaties affecting the former German territories in central Africa now administered by His Majesty's Government under mandate on behalf of the League of Nations. 5 As explained in its previous notes on this subject, the Government of the United States, in proposing the text of the preambles in question, followed substantially the same form as has been accepted in the treaties with Belgium and France covering territories in tropical Africa under mandate to those Governments and in the treaty with Japan covering the former German territories in the North Pacific Ocean under mandate to that Government, believing it to be desirable in the interest of uniformity to incorporate in the treaties proposed for negotiation between Great Britain and the United States substantially the same preambles as those incorporated in the other treaties mentioned above. The Government of the United States adheres to the position it has heretofore taken, namely, that the right to dispose of the overseas possessions of Germany was acquired only through the victory of the Allied and Associated Powers, and that there can be no valid or effective disposition of these territories without the assent of the United States as one of the participants in that victory. This position of the United States is not opposed, but is confirmed, by the Treaty of Versailles, by which Germany renounces in favor of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, of which the United States was one, all her rights and titles over her overseas possessions. It 2 For previous correspondence, see Foreign Relations, 1923, vol. 1, pp. 228 ff. Ibid., p. 230. "Ibid. Ibid., vol. 1, p. 433. 'Ibid., vol. II, p. 8. Ibid., 1922, vol. II, p. 600. 'Malloy, Treaties, 1910-1923, vol. II, p. 3329. may further be observed that in providing (Article 440) that the Treaty when ratified by Germany and three of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers should come into force between the ratifying Powers, it was manifestly not the intention that on such ratification by three Powers there should still remain in Germany any undivided share of right, title or sovereignty in the overseas possessions described. It would seem to be clear that the renunciation set forth in Article 119 of the Treaty was not intended to be divisible. In consequence, had the Treaty come into force on the ratification by only three of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, the renunciation would still have been completely effective, disposing of the entire interest of Germany, and Article 119 would necessarily have thus become effective according to its express terms, that is, in favor of the five Principal Allied and Associated Powers and not otherwise. The three ratifying Powers could have claimed no greater right or title than the Treaty gave and no exclusive right or title which the Treaty by its terms did not confer. There was the same result on the actual ratification of the Treaty and the failure of the United States to ratify did not qualify the terms of Germany's renunciation. Any different terms would necessarily require the agreement of the parties concerned, including Germany herself, and no such agreement was made. Subsequently, it may be added, Germany by her treaty with the United States confirmed to the United States the rights and benefits accruing to it under Article 119 of the Treaty of Versailles. Thus, it must be insisted that both by virtue of the participation of the United States in the common victory and by the explicit terms of Germany's renunciation of her overseas possessions, no valid disposition of the territories in question can be made without the consent of the United States, and, as has already been pointed out, this consent can only be granted through a duly negotiated treaty ratified with the advice. and consent of the Senate of the United States. The Government of the United States cannot depart from this fundamental position and consequently is unable to admit that four of the five Principal Allied and Associated Powers can accord to themselves or to others any privileged position or any advantages not equally accorded to the United States in the former German overseas possessions title and right to which, as a result of the common victory, were renounced by Germany in favor of the five Principal Allied and Associated Powers. 8 Although, as stated above, the Government of the United States believes that it would be desirable in the interest of uniformity if the preambles of the treaties which it is negotiating with His Majesty's Government could follow substantially the form of the preambles accepted by the Governments of Belgium, France and Japan in the treaties concluded between those countries and the United States, nevertheless, the Government of the United States, while it maintains unqualifiedly the position it has taken with regard to its rights in mandated territories, is not disposed to insist unduly upon the mere form of the preambles heretofore suggested for incorporation in the pending treaties with Great Britain. Ac Foreign Relations, 1921, vol. I, p. 29. cordingly, the Government of the United States submits for the consideration of His Majesty's Government the following alternative form of preamble which, it is hoped, satisfactorily meets the objections of the latter Government. 'WHEREAS His Britannic Majesty has accepted a mandate for the administration of part of the former colony of BLANK, the terms of which have been defined by the Council of the League of Nations as follows: (Insert terms of mandate except for preamble.) And, WHEREAS the Government of the United States of America and the Government of His Britannic Majesty are desirous of reaching a definite understanding as to the rights of their respective Governments and of their nationals in the said territory: The President of the United States of America and His Britannic Majesty have decided to conclude a convention to this effect and have nominated as their plenipotentiaries et cetera.' The Government of the United States is willing to proceed immediately to the signature of these proposed treaties with the preambles modified as suggested herein." Department would be glad to have you proceed as soon as possible to signature of these treaties and will be prepared to telegraph you the necessary full powers when a favorable response is received from the Foreign Office. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations has reported favorably two French B mandate treaties and Belgian mandate treaty has been sent to Senate. HUGHES 800.01 M 31/201 The Ambassador in Great Britain (Kellogg) to the Secretary of State No. 623 LONDON, July 31, 1924. SIR: I have the honor to enclose a copy, in triplicate, of a note dated July 29, 1924, from the Foreign Office regarding the proposed treaties affecting the former German territories in Central Africa (B Mandates).... I have [etc.] The British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (MacDonald) to the American Ambassador (Kellogg) No. W5896/23/98 LONDON, July 29, 1924. YOUR EXCELLENCY: You recently enquired whether His Majesty's Government were in a position to reply to Your Excellency's note 10884-Vol. II-39-19 of the 18th February last regarding the proposed treaties affecting the former German territories in Central Africa now administered by His Majesty's Government under mandate on behalf of the League of Nations, and to proceed to the conclusion of those treaties. 2. I have the honor to state that His Majesty's Government would prefer to postpone their final answer to the note in question until a more advanced stage has been reached in the negotiation of the treaty relating to the British mandate in Palestine. Their views on the latest proposals of the United States Government in regard to that matter were communicated to you in my note of the 17th instant.10 I have [etc.] (For the Secretary of State), 800.01 M 31/204: Telegram The Ambassador in Great Britain (Kellogg) to the Secretary of State LONDON, December 30, 1924-3 p. m. [Received December 30-1:39 p. m.] 541. A note from the Foreign Office states that the British Government are now prepared to conclude with the United States Government treaties in the terms of the draft enclosed in Mr. Harvey's note March 24, 1923, concerning the former German territories in Central Africa now administered under mandate by His Majesty's Government; and that the preamble suggested in my note of February 18 last is acceptable to the British Government subject to the substitution in the case of the Cameroons and Togoland of the word "protectorate" for "colony," the former being the designation given to those territories by the German Government at the outbreak of the war. The note concludes by stating that I will be informed as soon as the necessary documents are ready for signature. Mr. Harvey's note above referred to was based on your telegram 61, March 21, 5 p. m., 1923.11 My note of February 18th above referred to was based on your telegram 39, February 16, 7 p. m., 1924. Please instruct. KELLOGG See telegram no. 39, Feb. 16, to the Ambassador in Great Britain, p. 193. 9 10 Post, p. 208. "Foreign Relations, 1923, vol. II, p. 228. |