'File 3/8 Affairs of Sh. Khaz`als sons.' [‎183r] (365/508)

E2649/18/93/
1936.
19
This loan was in respect of the erection of consular premises at Ahwaz,
tiie building of which had been commenced but had, after the fall of the Sheikh’
been abandoned owing to certain town-planning schemes. The Sheikh’s title to
the land in question was more than doubtful and he had none to the buildings
except tor the foundations; and it was not considered that he had any legal claim
n v Govei ” t of Indi * His Majesty’s Government in the
ru Forei § n Gffice successfully urged that the loan should be regarded
as a debt of honour and that it should be repaid on the grounds of His Majesty’s
^rnW^ 11161 ^ s . m °r a J. for doing anything possible for our former
p otege, who, m addition to his political fall, was now in grave financial straits.
o i \ he ^Payment of the loan m respect of the Ahwaz consular site was
i? 1 / l 111110 ^ im Portance although illustrative of His Majesty’s Govern-
ment s attitude. Of much greater importance, however, was the question of the
“ 8 dat f gardens m Iraq, regarding which assurances had been given in
1914 (see last paragraph of Document No. 6 in the Annex). A detailed account
of developments m this highly complicated question would be out of place in the
n Ut Very i briefl y th 5 Position was as follows. The assurance
to the bheikh was fully implemented during the period when His Majesty’s
Government m the Tnited Kingdom were responsible to the League of Nations
for the administration of Iraq, but successive Iraqi Governments refused to accept
con !f ltm K eilt , m thls assurance (and in a similar one given to tJhe
bheikh of Koweit) as binding upon Iraq after the establishment of the indepen-
svTtem of tL?t UntlT in 1932 ‘ • T i ^ year tlle Ira ^ i Government altered their
IsHhl^k n tl0n U n 0Ii * a f ri ? ultu ral Products by a measure known as the
but nrflph Tfn 1 ° f Which taxat 1 1 °n was no longer levied on the land itself
cr0p as Wer ? sold or ex P° rt ed. It was decided that, in the
comm^/me^ 1 ^ 6 !! fadure Po^ sua de the Iraqi Government to accept the financial
re^n^. ^ helkhs ’ an obligation to compensate the latter must
Ind 7 S The CaSeS of the Sheikhs of Mohammerah
and Koweit diftered m that the latter was nominally independent whereas the
^ • 1D t t ny CaSe t J le 1 5 uestion ar ose whether Sheikh Khazal could
" av f ? successor m the sense of the 1914 assurances. It was decided however
basls’as the Shaikh n^K be * r , eated d “ r ing bis life-time on tlhe same
basis as the Sheikh of Koweit and the whole question of compensation was under
active consideration when Khazal died. The decision was then reached that pav
r f . ^ lTh enSatl ° n f ° r ° SSeS m res P ect of Istihlak taxation should be mad P e to
i k a 8 heirs °? an ex - ( l r ^ la basis, and in 1940/41 the sum of £15 218 was
distributed among them m full and final settlement of past losses on account of
form^nf t 10n 1 ““ P ros l ,ective f «rther losses P from this or alternative
fn jt'l f taxa „ tloI l 011 the land or its produce; m return, the heirs (or their trustees
fnli th t?f Se ° f * “ mors ) , w ? re required to sign documents accepting payment as a
full settlement of any claims against His Majesty’s Government under the pledc-e
given to the Sheikh of Mohammerah m 1914 in this particular regard. P g
The fate of the British assurances.
twJLi ,^ hile l .’ ha ? be ^ n st ; en ’ the P oIic y of His Majesty’s Government after
e Sheikh s rebellion m 1924 had been to endeavour honourably to disembarrass
ver dfferent and thile Vhf gl ?f t0 him - in tij 2? S when oircumstances were
decLred that the 81,? f, n - Ct r f dm g of Whose assurances, have
ecmred that the bheikh s disregard of their advice both in 1924 and in 1925
had rendered the assurances null and void, the fact is that they never d"d so All
part^f’tl^lfah’lnd^no ° f Shelkh , and sub sequent acts of bad faith on the
b a 'v, Ue . b , hah > and , 110 purpose would have been served and the feelines of
an old and sick man, who still regarded His Majesty’s Government with fritndH
ness and loyalty, would have been deeply wounded by any”uch Ictln Th/
ofSsha 1 ^^ 8 ^™^’^^"^^^™^^^^ 1 ^^^^^y^^orornment^in’tlie’demand 'W/i944 156 ^
Majesty’s “m^^tto^t^ty s^tM ^
extended after the death of Khazal to his fam^ly w^s expk ned to His Ey ? s
Charge d Affaires in a despatch of the 29th August. 1944 After describing
why the assurances were not regarded in principle as having lapsed durine th?
S-heikhs lifetime, this despatch made the following points/— g “
(a) Hl ®/Hajesty’s Government need have no feelings of delicacy towards
rQOKK>n eikh Khaza S h® 11,8 ’ as the y had had towards the Sheikh himself
[3255 7 ] d 2
E1365/110/
93/1940.
E 456, E 1836/
456/93/1941.