'File 73/7 II (D 22) Status of Koweit [Kuwait] - Baghdad railway, Anglo Turkish negotiations' [‎170r] (345/540)

[This Document is the Property of His Britaanic Majesty's Govemm^nf j
[A]
ASIATIC TURKEY AND ARABIA. {June 29.
r\
CONFIDENTIAL . S ectxon 1.
[27623] No. 1.
India Office The department of the British Government to which the Government of India reported between 1858 and 1947. The successor to the Court of Directors. to Foreign Office.—[Received June 29.)
^ r ' . India Office The department of the British Government to which the Government of India reported between 1858 and 1947. The successor to the Court of Directors. , June 28, 1912.
I AM directed by the Secretary of State for India to refer to the letter of this
Office, dated the 21st June, 1912, communicating copy of the telegram of the (govern
ment of India, dated the 20th idem, regarding British participation in the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran.
section of the Bagdad Railway and other matters, and in reply to offer the following
observations :—
Attention is invited to the fact that views have now formally been expressed by
the Government of India in favour of British participation in the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. section
to the extent of 50 per cent. This matter has been already dealt with in my letters of
the 21st May and the 10th June, 1912. Similarly, as regards the territorial questions
referred to in the telegram, I am to call attention to what was said in mv letter of the
18th June, 1912.
The question of the specification attached to the Bagdad Railway convention is
not, it will be seen, touched upon in the telegram of the Government of India : it may
be assumed that a further communication will be received from them when their
examination of the matter is complete.
There remains the question of the draft convention for setting up a Riverain
"T'' rt* Commission in the Shatt-el-Arab. The telegrams received from Sir P. Cox on this
subject, dated the 29th May and the 4th June, were enclosed in the letters of this
Office, dated the 4th and 7th June respectively, and it was explained in the penulti
mate paragraph of the former letter that the views of the Government of India would
in due course be communicated. These views, it will be seen, are in general accord
with those expressed by Sir P. Oox, but reason has been shown in the letter last
referred to why for the present at any rate they are inadmissable, and the Marquess of
Crewe has little to add to what he has said already upon this subject.
As regards the policing of the river, I am to say that one of the objects of the
proposed convention is to remove as far as possible all opportunity and excuse for
intervention and obstruction on the part of the local authorities, who often are—or are
conveniently represented to be—imperfectly controlled by the Central Government.
From this point of view it is most desirable that the maintenance of order should be in
the hands of such a semi-independent body as the commission, acting in direct subor
dination to the Porte itself. In reply to the argument that, " since the policing of the
river must include the suppression of piracy," those duties must continue in the hands
of the local authorities. Lord Crewe is disposed to think that with the increasing
development of commerce and navigation in the Shatt-el-Arab, the suppression of
piracy will assume a subordinate aspect, and may safely be left to the commission ; but
it might possibly be arranged that some police functions should be performed by the
Sheikh of Mohammerah under the authority and supervision of the commission.
As regards the approaches of the Shatt-el-Arab, it was thought preferable by the
interdepartmental committee which drafted the convention that the limits of the
commission's control should not be defined in the manner suggested by the Govern-
C ment of India, and clause 17 of the final draft (which the Government of India do not
seem to have had before them when they telegraphed) was thought to provide sufficient
safeguard. But there are obvious advantages in defining once for all the limits of
territorial waters if the Turkish Government can be brought to abandon the
extravagant claims which they are understood to entertain.
In this connection it is very desirable that it should be formally laid down that
the channel over the whole of which the Turkish jurisdiction is now to be admitted
should be the channel at low water—that is to say, that all land between high and low
water marks on the Persian bank will belong to Persia. From this it will follow that
islands connected with the Persian bank at low water will be Persian, and one of the
difficulties foreseen by Sir P. Cox will thus be removed. This stipulation will perhaps
[2511 f—1]
1
I)