'Arms traffic in the Persian Gulf, 1908-1928' [‎71v] (2/4)

2
War. One effect of the ^ ar was to release a very large quantity of arms
and ammunition, not least in territories bordering on the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. , and
from 1917 onwards the action to be taken to deal with the situation which
was regarded as likely to result was the subject of anxious consideration by
His Majesty’s Government. It is unnecessary in the present Memorandum,
which is directed solely to the local question of the situation in the Persian
Gulf, to enter into any detailed account of the discussions which took place.
Suffice it to say that consequent on them the matter was taken up and
pressed by His Majesty’s Government on the conclusion of the War, and
that, on ^Oth September 1919, an Arms Traffic Convention was approved
and signed at St. Germain-en-Laye by the Allied Powers other than the
United States of America, and by a number of the Powers associated
with them.
5. The Convention in question declared* “Persia, Gvvadur, the Arabian
Peninsula, and such continental parts of Asia as were included in the
Turkish Empire on 4th August 1914,” together with “a maritime zone
including . . . the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. and the Sea of Oman ...” prohibited
areas, within which the High Contracting Parties undertook to prohibit, save
under most stringent restrictions, the importation (and, in the case of the
maritime zone, the transportation) of specified arms and ammunition. It
proved impracticable, however, to secure the general ratification of the
Convention ; in 1923 the United States of America definitely declared their
inability to accede to its provisions, and it was abandoned.
6. But the question was too important to be allowed to drop, and in
September 1923 the Temporary Commission on Armaments was invited by
the League of Nations to examine it further and to consider the preparation
of an International Convention likely to meet with general acceptance The
result of the deliberations of this body was the holding at Geneva in 1925 of
an Arms Traffic Conference which drew up a revised Convention. The new
Convention, which was based, in general, on the abortive Convention of 1919,
followed that Convention in declaring the Arabian Peninsula, the Muscat
dependency of Gwadur on the Persian littoral of the Gulf, and a maritime
zone to include the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. and the Sea of Oman, and to be bounded by
a line drawn from and following the latitude of Cape Guardafui to the point
of intersection with longitude 57° East of Greenwich, and proceeding thence
direct to the eastern frontier of Gwadur, “ a special zone ” (or prohibited
area) for the purpose of the arms traffic. It likewise followed the Convention
of 1919 in providing that within the special zones no “ native vessel ” of less
than 500 tons net tonnage should be allowed to ship, discharge, or tranship
specified arms, ammunition and implements of war. The definition of a
native vessel was one either owned, fitted out or commanded by a native of
any country bordering on the Indian Ocean west of the meridian 95° East of
Greenwich and north of the parallel of 11“ South longitude, the Red Sea,
the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. or the Gulf of Oman, if at least half the crew are natives of
such countries. The Convention as originally drafted had likewise followed
the Convention of 1919 in declaring Persia a special zone.
7. The strongest exception was taken by the Persian delegates at the
League to the last-mentioned proposal, and, in deference to their represen
tations, it was decided that Persia should no longer be classified as a
prohibited or special area. Persian agreement to the inclusion of the Persian
■Gulf and the Sea of Oman in the “ special ” maritime zone was secured only
with the greatest difficulty, and consequent on earnest representations at
Teheran by His Majesty’s Government, while it proved impossible to secure
Persian concurrence in the inclusion of Persian vessels in the category of
native craft (it may be remarked that a specific reservation on this last point
was again made by Persia in connection with Article 3 of the League of
Nations Slavery Convention on the occasion of the signature of that
Convention (ad referendum) by her representative at Geneva in September
1926). In the event the Convention, which has not yet been ratified by any
of the principal arms-producing countries, was not signed by Persia. For
practical purposes, therefore, while His Majesty’s Government endeavour, in
dealing with the arms trade, to be guided so far as possible by the spirit of