"ملف رقم ١٣٥٦ لسنة ١٩١٢ الجزء ١ "الحدود التركية-الفارسية:- مفاوضات في القسطنطينية." [و‎‎٢‎٢‎٠] (٨٨٥/٤٤٩)

{
S'-
it
■■ MB
From Political Resident, Persian Gulf, 6th May 1912.
Mohammerah, 5th May. Your telegram(s) No. 185 of 12 th 4pril
VrlTl'~+A regards tecl l nic 1 ? 1 interpretation of text of articles. Original
liench text does not specifically assign to Turkey the sovereignty over the
■ fc Y"T e ° f , the river » and ^ seems clear from the observations of the Turkish
) Ambassador, quoted m paragraph 5 of my letter No. 446 of 9th March that
authmlti 37 if me r? i UTe n 0i their ^ ound in Maiming it. Nor have Basrah
attempted locally to exercise jurisdiction over it; on the contrary
Nmu and haYe r 2 P ea tedly recognized right not obligation of Sheikh
of Mohammerah to participate m measures for the suppression of piracy in
river, vide instances quoted m chapter 7 of Wilson’s precis.
avmg regard therefore to ^ the fact that treaty makes no definite
pronouncement on the point, it is submitted that the Turks cannot
legitimately read into the wording of Article 2 thereof a meaning or
mierence which constitutes a _ position apparently incompatible with
recognized principles of international law in regard to inter(iVation)al (?)
rivers ; nor would it appear practically possible under that law to assign to
one country control over whole waters of joint river without also assigning
to it Jurisdiction over both banks. Such a position would be specially
unworkable m case of tidal river like Shat-el-Arab, where landlUs lying
between high and low watermark are in many places extensive and carry
with them valuable fishing rights. Again, effect of giving whole of river to
Turkey wouid be to give them control of Oil Company’s wharf and anchor
age at Abadan and the present-day anchorage off Mohammerah, which is in
the mam stream.
Secondfy.—Ii however by appeal to Hague Tribunal or other arbitral
c ecision Turks are accorded control of whole of river, suggested arrangement
01 a P arc ; ly Ottoman Board with British member seems a desirable one.
i hird, _ as explained in my letter above quoted, I find it difficult to
understand how we can go back on our past attitude vis-d-vis Sheikh and
iersian Government on any grounds short of issue of some formal arbitral
decision which can be imposed on Persian Government.
As regards Sheikh himself it must be remembered that he is official
representative of the Persian Government as well as the Sheikh of
Mohammerah, and has with him a representative of Persian Foreion Office.
oi us to make a proposal to Sheikh on the lines suggested would ^surely be
to ask him to depart from that technical loyalty to the Central Government
on the observance of which our assurances to him have hitherto depended I
grant that he might be ready to accept our proposal in spite of Persian
Government, m return for a considerable extension of our assurances in the
direction of British protection. But however welcome to him and desirable
tor us such a development might be, we need to realise that if we acted fairly
and unequivocally up to extended assurances so given, we should be
imposing upon ourselves greatly increased responsibility in practice both in
regard to ^Ijcikh and his territories. This is a large question, which can be
considered deliberately as a factor of our general policy and intentions in
regard to Gulf and South Persia.
In view of unavoidable delay which has occurred in the despatch of this
India Officf t0 ^ absenCe fr0m commu “cation!s|, I have repeated it to
„*•' r V
trjv.'jbyjth
.x
favr( (M
0$