File 1356/1912 Pt 1 'Turco-Persian Frontier:- negotiations at Constantinople.' [‎48v] (106/885)

4
boundary on the Shatt at Di’aiji. A considerable strip of territory would thus be
relinquished to Turkey, especially if we consider Persia’s original claim—the course of
the marsh channel from west of Hawizeh until it reaches the Shatt-et-Arab. Persia
can afford to do this, for, although the area involved is an extensive one, with irrigable
potentialities which it is hard to estimate, it is nevertheless probable that the nomad
occupation and cultivation by Shi’eh Arab tribes under Persia would remain unaffected,
and that lurkish subjects and Turkish influence would continue to be as non-existent
and unknown east of the natural boundary as they are under existing conditions.
8 . As regards (c), I can only say that nothing in Mr. Parker’s memorandum
enables me to alter the view expressed in my telegram dated Mohammerah, the
5th May.
/, ^ 0UicL re jer to the following passage, based on the legal opinion of
on h. Davidson, Mr. Hurst, and Mr. Malkin, and quoted from the Foreian Office
letter of the Zlst May, 1912 (No. 22934) to the 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. ' '
“ SiT' E. Grey is advised that under normal conditions there is no doubt a
pi esumption that each riparian owner owns on Ins side of the river usque ad medium
um aquae, but that, in the present case, that presumption has by implication
undoubtedly been swept away by the terms of the Treaty of Erzeroum (1847) the
effect of which was to give Turkey the whole waterway
I would also refer to the view of Admiral Slade, Sir A. Hirtzel, and Mr Hurst
(see joint Utter of the 15th May, 1912, to Sir E. Grey (No. 20863) ).—A. P.
9 :j? “ nclu '? ion > I a wo t u , ld urge that ha ™g regard to the fact that our commercial
stake and interests in Southern Persia, present and potential, now mainly centre in
Arabistan, and are bound up with the maintenance of the Sheikh of Mohammerah’s
position and the strengthening of our special relations with him, we have everythinjr to
ose by a course of action (the failure to safeguard the status quo which has been
icgarded and treated by the present generation as the established order of things)
which will tend greatly to discredit the value of our engagements and support fnd
create in the minds of the Arab public in the Gulf and the native rulers in treaty ’with
us a feeling of apprehension and uncertainty which we can by no means, especially at
this juncture, afford to disregard. ^ ^
Our attitude will, in fact, be regarded as a crucial test of our sincerity and ability
to make good our engagements, and I would add the personal opinion that the increased
confidence and frank reliance m us, which the Sheikh of Koweit has shown within the
last two years, has been due less to anything that we have done for him than to the
?f onr t ^Tr^Ti !- 11 the J case of Mohammerah of the substantial and moral value
of our steadfast friendship and support: I should view with very great concern anv
action calculated to weaken those sentiments. ^
Ihere is a consensus of opinion as to the importance of obtainina the most
favourable settlement possible for the sheikh, due regard being had at the same
time to our general relations with Turkey, to legal and treaty and to
the expediency of not arousing misgivings as to the justice of our attitude in Turkey
wiere the Sheikhs of Mohammerah and our proteges, have largely invested
m real estate, and might suffer, from resentment entertained against His
Government. Whether our attitude can be such as to insist-m the face ofZMle
Turkish opposition-upon the continued exercise of jurisdiction by the Heikhoi
Mohammerah over his tribesmen resident in admittedly Turkish territory (Z ol
the right bank of the Shatt-el-AraV) is I think a
to the Za,n incident of 1910 ivas, as I understand inspired by the outrank
committed against the sheikh's relatives rather than by a determination to feZt
acts of lawful sovereignty and administration by the Turkish authorities on Turkish
sod Sir G. Barclay, m his letter of the 8th May, 1912, states that he understood
P^ZZZfZTp. ^ ^ t0 h " were
direct ^^-^^ <>^nding a copy of this letter
I have, &c.
P. Z. COX, Lieutenant-Colonel, British Resident in
the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. , and His Majesty's Consul-
General for Ears, &c.