File 1356/1912 Pt 1 'Turco-Persian Frontier:- negotiations at Constantinople.' [‎54v] (118/885)

2
of the purchase of real property in Turkish limits, and expresses the view that it is
undesirable that we “should give him any encouragement in this course.
As I have already pointed out, my misapprehension, if it is one, rests'n
certain passages, especially on pp. 58 and 59, of Lieutenant Wilson’s precis oh
Arabistan. — A. P.
3 . Speaking briefly, the notes now submitted may be said to bear on the several
points above cited to the following extent:—
As regards (a), it is shown—
( 1 .) That there has been no encroachment by Persia at this part of the frontier
for the last sixty years at least, and that the boundary which has throughout this period
been locally observed by both parties is apparently identical with that claimed by
Persia in 1850,'* which, it will be remembered, was only modified in the recommendations
of the mediating commissioners in order to secure to Turkey safe navigation up to
Bussorah ; and
( 2 .) That the experience of the same sixty years has demonstrated that the
danger then apprehended to Bussorah from the occupancy of these lands by Persia
is really non-existent, and is in any case provided against by the undertaking entered
into by the latter to erect no fortifications.
This, the non-existence of the danger, as demonstrated by experience, is
precisely what I have pointed out on p. 38 of my memorandum. — A. P.
As regards (b), it is submitted that the rough diagram enclosed in Colonel Williams’
despatch of the 4th February, 1850,t has already been shown to be altogether sketchy
and inaccurate and not drawn according to scale; that the boundary-line inserted in it
was apparently drawn arbitrarily and without any visit having been made to the
locality, and without knowledge of the local geographical or political conditions
existing; that the Hawizeh district has, in fact, been a recognised district of Persia
for three centuries; that its boundaries are well recognised, and that the adoption of
the arbitrary line shown in the diagram is not feasible in practice.
As regards (c), further arguments, based on both legal and practical considerations,
have been adduced in support of the attitude adopted by tbe 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. in their letter
to the Foreign Office dated the 3 rd June, 191 l.J
See my minute on p. 4, under 8 .— A. P.
Items (d) and (e) : Discussion of these points hardly comes within the scope of the
present letter ; I may therefore confine myself to a reference to the text of my notes
themselves, merely reiterating in regard to (e) that Mr. Parker’s observations seem to be
based on a misunderstanding of the sheikh’s proceedings.
My mi sunder standing arose from Lieutenant Wilsons precis (vide supra).— A. P.
4. As to the line of policy which His Majesty’s Government can best adopt under
the circumstances, Mr. Parker’s recommendations are :—
( 1 .) As regards (a), that we should confer with the Bussian Government and get
them to agree to our jointly advising the Persian Government to induce the Turks
to reveal the extent of their claims in respect of the neighbourhood of Mohammerah,
and then to press their claim for the recognition of the boundary (at Di’aiji) as locally
recognised and observed, and that we ourselves should simultaneously intimate to the
Porte in a friendly way the great importance which we attach to the maintenance of the
status quo, and ask them to take our wishes into favourable consideration.
( 2 . s That as regards (b), we should seek no departure from the arbitrary line drawn
by the mediating commissioners.
(3.) That as regards (c), we should support the claim of the Turks to the whole
channel.
5. It remains for me, as directed, to express my personal views with reference to
those conclusions and recommendations.
While 1 fully appreciate the soundness and advantage of the course adopted by
Mr, Parker, in drawing up his memorandum and framing his recommendations from the
pure!)' legal standpoint, from which the subject would probably be treated in the main
* Vide p. 37 of memorandum.
t Opposite p. 25 of memorandum. + P. 31 of Foreign Office memorandum.