File 868/1912 Pt 1 'Arms traffic: arrangements at Muscat for its regulation' [‎19r] (44/458)

[This Document is the Property of His,Britanmc Majesty's Government.]
[A]
ARMS TRAFFIC.
CONFIDENTIAL.
[March 15.]
Section 1.
[ 8921 ]
No. 1.
('Confidential.)
Sir,
Foreign Office to 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. .
Foreign Office, March 15, 1Q1
■\VITH reference to your letters of the 17tli, 21st, and 21th February last, and to
the letter from the Admiralty addressed to you on the 21st ultimo, respecting the
arms traffic in the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. , I am directed by Secretary Sir E. Grey to state, for
th“ information of the Secretary of State for India, that he has taken the various
questions raised therein into his careful consideration.
The main points which concern the 1’oreign Office are :
1 The position of a dhow A term adopted by British officials to refer to local sailing vessels in the western Indian Ocean. under the French flag in Persian or Muscat territorial
waters, and the powers of the Persian or Muscat Governments to restrain such a vessel
from carrying on a traffic in Govemmen t to support the Sheikhs of Koweit,
Bahrein and Mohammerah, and the Trucial chiefs in any difficulty that may arise
with the French Government, in consequence of seizures of cargoes of arms effected
under the authority of those rulers in their territorial waters. . , mi tj
3. The possibility of referring the attitude of France in Muscat to The Hague
for arbitration, and,'in connection with this, the question of arbitration on
re-export of arms from Jibuti.
Sir E. Grey’s opinion on these points may be expressed as follows
1. The reported action of M. Goguyer’s agent in purchasing a dhow A term adopted by British officials to refer to local sailing vessels in the western Indian Ocean. , and
reffisterino* it at the French consulate in Muscat under the French flag, would seem,
under present conditions, to provide the dealers in arms with a vessel that is exempt
from^e^rcToVsetre by’ His Majesty’s ships. The questmu l^s ruimardy on the
powers of the Persian or Muscat Government to exercise restiaxnt on such a oliow,
and secondarily on the extent of the mandate to exercise restramt on then e ,
respecting which Persia or Muscat may be able to accord to Gieat Britain. _
respecting wmen ^ / esses full ex t ra -territorial jurisdiction in 1 ersia
land holds ’a similar position in Muscat, so that the same consideration holds goo
for both countries), and P Persia has parted to France with her jnrisdi^ion over I rene i
citizens, and cannot derogate from her own grant ^ « 0 " f “ rl "f rs ° i " ^“Lriffi wateS
jurisdiction or power to interfere with French dhows the S ultimo
t (Jrev therefore agrees with the view expressed m your letter ot ttio ziui umme,
bir Vjrey tneieioie vv iwpmhpr 1897 does not authorise the
iVie* SHflv-i A 7 am s letter of the loth uecemoer, ±o«v/, p •
with iU right to prevent . eontrabanil trailo ''.'l' 11 " f
carried on under the flag of France, or any ot 3 , s for the internal
r, szsz
HSJStZ to Y'j^AsSSSLSS^
citizens from acting illegally, by means of the ^^procedure in Persia-
Sir E. Grey does not possess any P r « clse ,“ f “ ra ^^Xmin" that France does not
in cases of smuggling offences by French cltl “ .’. her eitiz e ns f ro m committing
Cits S ^e
strong outside pressure may be considered to be doubtful.
[2659 p—1] -