'Slavery in the Persian Gulf' [‎66r] (3/4)

u>
demand, if made, has been under the active consideration of the Government
of India and His Majesty’s Government.
Persia and the League of Nations Slavery Convention of
8. The position is complicated by the existence of the League of Nations
Slavery Convention of 1926. The Convention in question imposes on the
States adhering to it a binding obligation to take, within their capacity, all
possible action to prevent and to suppress the slave trade, and to bring
about, progressively and as soon as possible, the complete abolition of
slavery in all its forms. It provides further, however, in the first place
(Article 3), that States adhering to its terms shall remain free to conclude,
subject to its provisions, such special agreements as, by reason of their
peculiar situation, may appear suitable to attain its objects, and, secondly,
(Article 9), that States shall be at liberty to adhere to it subject to
reservations in respect of the application of the Convention or part of it to
some or all of the territories of the State concerned.
9. Were Persia to sign and ratify the Convention in question in respect
of the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. , and were she in a position effectively to discharge in
that area the international obligations undertaken by her under the
Convention, the case for a special agreement between her and His Majesty’s
Government on the general lines of the Slavery Convention of 1882, would
be substantially weakened, if not destroyed, although the terms of Article 3
of the Convention, to which reference is made above, would clearly leave it
open to her to conclude such an agreement. In fact, however, while the
Convention was signed by the Persian representative at the League, his
signature was given ad referendum (and subject to a specific minor
reservation), and the Convention has not been ratified by Persia. Moreover,
even were she to ratify it, in its present form, she would be incapable, as
matters stand, of discharging effectively the obligations which it would
impose upon her, for there is no Persian Navy (other than a few Customs
preventive boats), and the local Persian officials in the Gulf are stated by the
Political Resident A senior ranking political representative (equivalent to a Consul General) from the diplomatic corps of the Government of India or one of its subordinate provincial governments, in charge of a Political Residency. to be of such a character that, in the absence of the
Convention of 1882, they would themselves participate in the slave traffic.
10. The available evidence indicates that relaxation, even, of the
precautions at present taken under the Convention of 1882 to prevent
slavery in the Gulf is likely to lead to a serious recrudescence of the slave
traffic. The apparent impotence of Persia to substitute an effective
preventive service of her own and the importance of provision for the
effective discharge in the Gulf of the humanitarian and international
obligations at present discharged by His Majesty’s Government under the
1882 Convention, make it desirable, therefore, that if that Convention is
to be revised, the new Instrument, if any, to be substituted for it in
deference to Persian susceptibilities, should differ from it in form and not
in substance. From a different standpoint it is desirable that whatever
compromise is offered to Persia should aim at retaining control by
His Majesty’s Government of preventive action (the objections to the
development of a Persian Naval Force, which in present circumstances
would probably be officered from foreign and non-British sources, are
patent), and at retaining the present immunity of British ships from search
on the high seas by Persian vessels.
Attitude to be adopted towards a Persian demand for abrogation.
Views of Foreign Office.
11. A final decision has not been reached as to the offer to be made to
Persia should she press for the abrogation of the Convention of 1882. The
Foreign Office in June 1928 expressed the view that His Majesty’s
Government should assent to such a demand on the understanding only
that the Convention should be replaced by a new Convention which, in
order to meet Persian susceptibilities regarding unequal treaties, should be
drafted on a basis of reciprocity', and should generally follow, subject to
certain modifications, the lines of an existing Slavery Treaty between
His Majesty’s Government and another first-class Power, such as the
Anglo-Italian Slavery Treaty of 1889. (A Convention on these lines would,
it may be remarked, empower Persian vessels to search British ships
P. 4700/28.
F.O. to I.O., June
1928, P. 3080.