File 1880/1904 Pt 2 'Perso-Afghan Frontier: - The Undemarcated portion. Afghan encroachments.' [‎48r] (100/240)

i'
C3VFIDENTIAL.
. i
vOX
■Ai- r
P
tip)
No. 5-C., dated Seistan, the 18 h March 1910.
From— Major W. F. O’Connor, His Britannic Majesty’s Consul for Seistan and
Kain,
To— Sir George, Barclay, K.C.M.G., C.V.O., His Britannic Majesty’s Envoy
Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at the Court ot Persia, Tehran.
Undemarcated Perso-Afghan Frontier.
I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch No. 1, dated 4th
February 1910 (in continuation of previous correspondence ending with my tele
gram No. 70, dated 22nd December 1909), in which you inform me that you have
recently received a note from the Persian Minister for Foreign Affairs with reference
to alleged encroachments of Afghans across the undefined portion of the Perso-
Afghan Frontier between Hashtadan and the Namaksar Lake in the ne’gh-
bourhood of Musabad, Aynbi and Khushabeh; and that the Ala-u-Saltaneh
in his communication refers to representations which, were addressed by tire
Viceroy of India to the Government of Afghanistan in 1903, and urges that the
necessity of preserving the gwo should be pressed upon the Afghans until
such time as the two parties shall have taken the necessary measures with regard
to the frontier questions-; and you request me to furnish you with my opinion res
pecting the above mentioned charge of the violation of the status quo.
2. With respect to the actual point upon which you desire my opinion I regret
that I am at present unable to furnish you with specific details. Some months
ago when I received your telegrams No. 35, dated 31st October, and No. 42, dated
9th December, I caused enquiries to be made by Agents from the Kainat in the
direction of Musabad; and the result of my enquiry was embodied in my telegram
to your address No. 70, dated 22nd December. Your despatch now under reply
quotes no fresh allegations from the side of the Persian Government of trespass or
alteration of the status quo by the Afghans. Very similar coir plaints have been
preferred almost yearly for a good many years past by the Persian Government,
and without full details regarding the alleged encroachments it would be difficult
to say whether the complaints are well founded or not. The exact situation at
Musabad can only be ascertained by actual examination of the state of affairs now
prevailing on the spot, and the charge of altering the status quo could only be sifted
by comparing previous records of the situation with that which at present pre
vails. This can no doubt be done, and during my forthcoming journey to Meshed
I propose to take the necessary steps to render myself acquainted with the exact
state of affairs as far as can be done through native agents Non-British agents affiliated with the British Government. for I do not think it
would be advisable myself to visit this disputed tract while the position remains
so undefined and so apt to bring about disputes; and I hope b} the end of April
to be able to inform you of the result of my enquiries.
3. Meanwhile, however, at the risk of appearing tedious, I have ventured to
prepare for the favour of your perusal a note upon the history of the question of
the undemarcated Perso- Afghan boundary (more especially the Musabad portion^
Since the time of General Maclean’s mission in 1891/ ^his summary is not without
interest as emphasizing the very precarious state of this undemarcated frontier
more especially the Musabad portion of it. It will be observed, for instance that
both parties have at different times formally claimed in writing that Musabad is
“ undoubtedly ” their own territory. The Amir, in 1897 wrote to the Govern-
ment of India that “ Musabad is not a disputed tract. It is manifestly a tract.
within the limits of the God-given kingdom ” (see paragraph 6 of attached note); .
and the Persian Foreign Minister in his note addressed recently to lour Excel-1
lency remarks that “ Musabad is undoubtedly Persian territory.
Further one cannot but observe that the recrudescence < f the boundary
dispute is one of almost annual occurrence. I am unable to say when it first began
C-18F. D.