File 1356/1912 Pt 1 'Turco-Persian Frontier:- negotiations at Constantinople.' [‎55r] (119/885)

4
if it went before The Hague Court, yet I think that it is generally agreed that it is
very greatly to our interests to avert an appeal to that court by diplomatic action ; and
't is hoped that these notes, read in conjunction with Mr. Parker’s memorandum, will
feffice to demonstrate that the Persian contentions in regard to the boundary from
Dawairij southwards are well-founded, and will enable His Majesty’s Government to
undertake that action with confidence.
A copy of the Foreign Office memorandum of the 23rd February, 1912, in
ichich a reference to The Hague Tribunal was first deprecated, has been sent to
Sir P. Cox. It is in consequence of the inexpediency of such a reference that an
alternative course was suggested in the Foreign Office letter of the 31st May, 1912
(No. 22191) to the 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. . — A. P.
6 . As regards point (a), I agree that we should in the first instance confer with the
Russian Government with a view to obtaining their co-operation ; this, judging by
their attitude at the time of the Treaty of Erzeroum* we may presumably expect them
readily to afford.
1 would urge, however, that in our communication to the Porte we should g;o con
siderably further than Mr. Parker suggests. The expediency of making some intimation
to the Porte of the nature of our engagements with the Sheikh of^ Mohammerah has
aln ady been deliberately considered by His Majesty’s Government in connection with
the Zain incident of 1910, and approved of in principle. The local authorities at
Bussorah have even been informed in the most explicit manner by Hip Majesty’s
consul at Bussorah that the Sheikh 6 f Mohammerah is under British protection.t This
announcement was widely promulgated in Turkish and Arabic papers at the time, and
must be common knowledge to the Porte. Surely, in view of these considerations, we
are now in a position to speak freely to the latter, explaining that we have been m the
best possible position for being aware of and taking note of the nature o± the status quo,
as locally observed for the past sixty years or more ; that taking for granted, as we were
warranted in doing, the permanence of that status quo, we have entered into engage
ments with the Sheikh of Mohammerah which involve its maintenance, and that both
our interests and our good name preclude us from_ going back on these pledges or
permitting any alteration of the sheikh’s position on the Shatt-el-Arab and m
Arabistan
As regards (b). It is submitted that it has already been pointed out in the past
correspondence that the rough and small-scale diagram^ enclosed in Colonel \\ ilhams
despatch of the 4 th February, 1850, was not a document on which any reliance could
be placed • that the boundary line shown in it must have been arbitrarily drawn ; that
as far as Hawizeh is concerned, it is clearly only very approximate and indeterminate,
and must have been so inserted in the absence of any local knowledge or visit to the
locality ; that the Hawizeh district has been a recognised district of Persia for three
centuries, that there is no record of its having been claimed by Turkey, and that the
adoption of the arbitrary line shown in Colonel Williams diagram is not feasible m
practice.
Vide supra under 2 (b).— A. P.
7 . Should it be necessary for Persia to make some concession to Turkey as a set-off
against the abandonment of the latter’s claim in the Arabistan region, I would recal to
mind that the Turks seem in 1891§ to have contemplated such abandonment in return
for the cession of certain territory between Zohab and Khamkm, and it might be
possible to come to some such arrangement now. The very important British 01
cession at Kasr-i-Shirin would probably be affected by such a cession of territory, but if
the Turks would consent to guarantee the continuance of this, the change of nation
ality might not improbably operate to the benefit of t he company.
Zohab is largely within the Russian sphere: moreover, Persia seems now to
attach almost greater importance to Zohab than to Mohammerah. A.
Locallv, the only concession which it would appear that we can advisedly recom-
mend to the Persian Government to agree to, in order by friendly compromise o
eliminate the boundary betweeh Dawairij and the Shatt-el-Arab from the issues
referable to The Hague, is that the line should be drawn from the channel west of the
village of Shu’aib direct to Kishk-i-Bussorah, and thence to the locally recognised
* P, 19 of memorandum.
+ Opposite p. 25 of memorandum.
•j- P.61 of Wilson’s precis.
§ See Annex (II) to this letter.