File 1356/1912 Pt 1 'Turco-Persian Frontier:- negotiations at Constantinople.' [‎108v] (226/885)

Lord Crewe’s opinion, be modified in any respect in order to provide for the pomts
enumerated in the finkl paragraph of Sir P Cox’s shorter telegram of the j 3 rd May
In regard to the longer telegram of the same date, I *0 enc ^ e > e c
information of the Marquess of Crewe, certain comments on deta ' •
’ LOUIS MALLET.
Enclosure
Telegram from Lieutenant-Colonel Sir P.
Cox to the Marquess of Crewe. (Com
municated by 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. , May 24.)
Muscat, May 23, 1912.
APART from question of jurisdiction
over waters of Shatt-el-Arab, which has
been dealt with separately, following are
salient points of my letter No. M. b5,
dispatched to Government of India and
London on 21st May, regarding Turco-
Persian frontier, in reply to Mr. Parker’s
memorandum of 3rd April:—
Firstly, independence of Kaab. State
ment at p. 8 of Wilson’s precis shows Kaab
to have been under Persia in 1620, that is,
prior to date of Sultan Murad’s treaty.
Moreover, available evidence tends to
show that they never were really Turkish
subjects.
Secondly, ownership of the lands between
the locally recognised frontier and Moham-
merah. Local Turkish authorities have
accorded unequivocal and repeated recog
nition of present boundary by erection of
marks and maintenance for many years of
permanent frontier customs post at Diaiji;
such action should make it impossible for
them after a lapse of sixty years to claim
another frontier to which their pretensions
are at least doubtful. It is hardly likely
that they would get support from Hague
Tribunal.
Thirdly, status in Turkey of sheikh and
his tribesmen. Foreign Office seem to be
unduly apprehensive in this regard. Pro
visions of Treaty of Erzeroum appear to
refer to nomad tribes only, and not to
settled agriculturists like these. They
represent bulk of very large agricultural
community, and as Turks have no surplus
population wherewith to replace them, it
seems extremely unlikely that they will
attempt to oust them, even if they were in
a military position to do so, which is very
doubtful. Problem has not caused much
practical difficulty hitherto, and v* ill
probably adjust itself if left to the local
authorities. Sheikh of Mohammerah, at
all events, will adopt a reasonable attitude
in his own interests.
in No. 1.
Comments by Mr. Parker.
Firstly. I have no observations to make
on this beyond what is stated in my
memorandum of the 3rd April, 1912. A
full history of the Chaab is contained in
Major Rawlinson’s memorandum of 1844.
I have already pointed out that the state
ment on p. 7 of Lieutenant Wilson’s precis
to the effect that the independence of the
Chaab was recognised by treaty is based
on an erroneous reference and appears
not to be founded on fact. But the point
seems only to be of academic interest.
Secondly. I have stated in detail in my
memorandum the reasons why the prospect
of a favourable issue of a reference to TJie
Hague Tribunal seems uncertain: but the
matter is admittedly one of speculation.
^Thirdly. A separate memorandum on
this point is in course of preparation.