'Report and Proceedings of the Standing Sub-Committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence on the Persian Gulf' [‎33v] (71/94)

Sir C. Spring-Rice,
No. 296,
Telegraphic,
October 20, 1906.
Sir C. Spring-Rice,
No. 321,
Telegraphic,
October 31, 1906.
Mr. Barclay,
No. 764,
November 21,
1906.
Sir C. Spring-Rice,
No. 353,
Telegraphic,
November 29,
1906.
Sir C. Spring-Rice,
No. 284,
November 9, 1906.
Sir S. Canning,
No. 155,
July 18, 1844.
Colonel Williams,
Ushni,
July 18, 1852 (see
< 'olonel Sheil’s
despatch No. 94 of
August 10, 1852).
On the 20th October the Persian Government stated that the Turkish forces had
advanced close to Soujboulak, and that they were collecting taxes within 2 miles of
Urumia.
On the 31st October Sir C. Spring-Rice telegraphed that the situation had
changed for the better, partly owing to an outbreak of mutiny among the Turkish
troops. The Persian Government now had hopes that an agreement would be
reached. . . .
On the 2lst November Mr. Barclay reported that the Persian Commissioner has
proposed the Kandil Dagh as frontier. This had been rejected by the Porte, as it
would give Vazne and the command of the Vazne defile to Persia.
On the 29th November Sir C. Spring-Rice stated that the Ottoman Government
had proposed a joint Boundary Commission to meet at Mosul, but that the Persian
Government were pressing for Soujboulak as nearer.
Conclusion.
It is difficult to establish with certainty how the present dispute originated.
Vazne and Lahidjan have, as has been shown, been for some time the subject of
contention. Although the Persian Customs Department under M. Nans may have
been responsible for certain aggressions upon debatable land, the balance^ of evidence
would tend to show that the personal ambition of local Ottoman officials was the
primary cause of the occupation of Vazne and Lahidjan ; while, in regard to the further
encroachments of Ottoman troops, upon territory which can only be claimed as Turkish
upon the discredited reports of Dervish Pasha An Ottoman title used after the names of certain provincial governors, high-ranking officials and military commanders. , there is ample reason to believe that
Ottoman statesmen are themselves aware how difficult it is to justify the attitude of
Turkey.
But even in regard to the places within the frontier zone, the whole weight of
tradition and of documentary proof goes to show that Persia and not Turkey is the
aggrieved p;irty.
Major Rawlinson, who visited Lahidjan in 1838 and who was intimately acquainted
with the frontier between Bussorah and Urumia, drew up a report for the Erzeroum
Commission in 1844. He wrote as follows :—
“The present general line of frontier from Banna to Lahidjan would appear to be correct
(according to the Treaty of 1639) .... but at the same time, owing to the restless habits of
the Bilbass tribe, who inhabit along the track in question, it would seem very desirable to
establish fixed nomadic and geographical limits in Serdesht.
“The great Piran division of the tribe still continues, it is true, to reside in winter on the
Lesser Zab, but the Mangish and Mamoor divisions are for the most part settled in Lahidjan
which is Persian territory, and pay, moreover, the revenues of their lands to the Mikri, proprietors
of Soujboulak
“ The boundary from the Kurtek Pass, which is the limit of Surdesht, proceeds north
westerly along the great range of Kandilan.* dividing Lahidjan from Balik, and then crossing at
right angles the shoulder which incloses Sulding to the south, reaches the Kel-i-Shin Pass of
Ushni. The geographical distinction is most marked upon this part of the line, and, as the
Mikris (Persian) also held Lahidjan at the time of Sultan Murad’s Treat} (1639), while Balik was
dependent on the Suhran Chiefs of Rowanduz, there seems no reason to doubt the correctness of
the present territorial distribution.
“From the Kel-i-Shin Pass the frontier is supposed to follow the culminating points of the
great range, dividing Ushni from Rowanduz, Mergawer from Kamerish.”
This is an interesting statement, as the Porte have always contended that the
boundary should be fixed on the basis of the Treaty of 1639.
Perhaps the strongest refutation of the present claims of Turkey is afforded by the
map (see Appendix (A) ) communicated to the Erzeroum Commission by the Ottoman
Commission in December 1843. Two lines are drawn on this map, one shows the
boundary claimed by Turkey, the other the then boundary of possession. Lahidjan
(and a fortiori Vazne) lies on the Persian side of both these lines.
In writing of the intrigues of Dervish Pasha An Ottoman title used after the names of certain provincial governors, high-ranking officials and military commanders. in 1852, Colonel Williams gave his
views as to the ownership of Lahidjan :—
“Miiza Jaffer Khan (the Persian Commissioner) holds to the Article of the new Treaty of
Erzeroum, by which, independent of the Provinces of Mohammerak, Zohab, and Suliemanieh,
both parties bind themselves not to urge territorial claims, and common justice demands that,
whilst the Persian Commissioner abstained from agitating the population of Suliemanieh, his
* I.e., the Kandil Dagh, now (1906) claimed by Persia as a frontier.