File 3615/1913 Pt 1 'Persian Gulf: Moin-ut-Tujjar's concessions' [‎185r] (374/584)

/
From Sir P. Cox to Government of India, Foreign Department,
23rd October 1913.
(Repeated to Minister at Tehran and 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. ).
Yorir telegram No. 463 S and previous correspondence. On return from
tour 1 have seen Minister’s telegram No. 365 to Foreign Office regarding
lease of wharf to Germans and have also learnt from Sir Edmund Slade
details ohscope of oil scheme contemplated by Admiralty.
As regards first question. In view of conciliatory attitude of Germany
during currency of negotiations it would seem impolitic to obstruct a
transaction which though inconvenient cannot be ultimately prevented
without .appearance of hostility.
As regards Admiralty scheme ; its operations may extend to islands and
hinterland of Persian coast, both of which are covered by Article 1 of D’Arcy
concession. Consequently the importance of securing general mining con
cession for Pritish nominee or retention of control by Persian Goverment
becomes greatly accentuated. Moreover, apart from other objections already
mooted, it might justly be contended that grant of concession to Muin would
be incompatible with D’Arcy concessions so far as mining of oil is concerned,
and that it would be highly inconvenient to have two concessions overlapping
in same tract.
Both practically and internationally our position in Gulf is very much
stronger now than it was in time of Muin’s former concession, and in my
judgment we can afford to defy his hostility so far as Gulf sphere is
concerned ; and in view of his threat quoted in Minister’s telegram above
mentioned and of fresh and cogent considerations imported into problem
by Admiralty scheme I agree that we should certainly do so.
I would urge that breach of assurances by Persian Government affords
us ample grounds for giving warning on lines suggested in conclusion of my
telegram No. 80/1020, but in more formal terms. After demanding cancellation
of lease, I suggest that we should exact formal undertaking either that scope
of D’Arcy concessions should be extended so as to cover general mining rights
in the islands and immediate hinterlands of Gulf coast; or, failing that, that
Persian Government should be required to undertake to retain such general
rights in their own hands and, give no concession for them except to Anglo-
Persian Oil Company in extension of D’Arcy concession; or to some
other approved British nominee. They might be finally informed that
failing compliance with one of the above alternatives, or in the event of any
attempt to violate undertakings now given, British Government would have
to take immediate steps to place their interests in the island ports and the
immediate hinterland, as covered by the D’Arcy concession, out of further
danger. I gather that some action on these lines was contemplated by
Minister in his telegram No. 339 to Foreign Office.
The above observations presuppose that Admiralty would have to work
their scheme through Oil Company, and that British Government can
dominate latter, financially or otherwise.