Coll 17/15(2) 'Relations with Persia: Persia-Iraq frontier; Persia's claim in the Shatt-el-Arab' [‎305v] (621/1010)

neighbourly relations agreements. Signor Soragna did not show any particular
interest in the oil question.
8. It emerged from the conversation that three methods of procedure might
be contemplated : {a) A reference of the juridical issue to the Permanent Court'
(b) the grant by Iraq of the conservancy agreement in exchange for Iranian
recognition of the boundary; (c) Iranian agreement to refer the issue to the
Permanent Court in exchange for the three agreements, these to come into force
simultaneously with the decision, whatever its nature. Nuri Pasha An Ottoman title used after the names of certain provincial governors, high-ranking officials and military commanders. asked the
rapporteur to press {a) and (b) on the Iranians, and promised to discuss (c) further
if he failed to obtain their consent.
9. On the 20th May a reply was sent to Bagdad telegram of the 19th
{paragraph 7). Nuri Pasha An Ottoman title used after the names of certain provincial governors, high-ranking officials and military commanders. saw Baron Aloisi in the evening. Baron Aloisiwas
apologetic regarding the events at Rome, emphasised the difficulty of his position,
and explained that he was now convinced that the juridical and practical aspects
of the problem should be dealt with by parallel efforts.
10. On the 21st May a telegram was received from Bagdad approving of
the negotiation of the conservancy agreement in exchange for Iranian recognition
of the boundary. A further telegram was sent asking for authority to agree to
method (c) of the lines of procedure referred to in paragraph 8.
11. On the 22nd May it was understood that the Iranian delegation had
submitted to the rapporteur a draft conservancy and navigation agreement. The
text has not been communicated to the Iraqi delegation.
12. In the evening of the 22nd May a letter (Appendix D) was suddenly
received from the rapporteur together with a draft proposal (Appendix E) and
explanatory note (Appendix F). The proposal provided for: (a) Reaffirmation
of the 1914 boundary throughout its length, but modified as in (6); (6) extension
of the Mohammerah anchorage southwards to a point opposite Bawarda below
Abadan, giving Iran half the river for about 20 miles instead of 6 as at present
(in the formula the thalweg is substituted for the median line); (c) withdrawal
of the Iranian police posts in Iraqi territory, decision regarding the Barkhosh
fields, and settlement of the questions of the waters of streams crossing the
boundary; (d) conclusion of a conservancy and navigation agreement.
13. The Iraqi delegation replied on the 23rd May (Appendix G) recalling
the essentially juridical nature of the case, reminding the rapporteur of the point
where the negotiations with him had been left on the 19th May (see paragraphs),
and stating that the proposal based on a cession of territory by Iraq to Iran was
unacceptable. It was also made plain that the suggestion that the Conservancy
Board should be formed of five members, giving the foreign element a majority
over the riparians, could not be accepted. (This matter is further discussed in
Part B of this note, paragraphs 24, 25 and 26.)
14. A few additional criticisms of the rapporteur's proposals and
arguments, prepared at the time but not used, are attached for convenience of
reference (Appendix H).
15. The Iranian delegation was understood to have rejected the
rapporteur's proposal out of hand with contumely.
16. In the afternoon of the same day Nuri Pasha An Ottoman title used after the names of certain provincial governors, high-ranking officials and military commanders. saw Signor Soragna and
gave him to understand that, if an agreement had been in sight on all othei
points and there had remained only the matter of the curious status of snips
loading and unloading at Abadan, he might have felt able to ask his Governmen
and its technical advisers to study the possibility of giving to Iran some special
anchorage facility there; he would not wish to wreck an otherwise certain
settlement on that point alone. aln
17. On the 24th May Signor Soragna called with Signor Scaduto. ®
stated that he had already begun to prepare his report. He proposed to revi
in very general terms the progress of the discussions without referring speci ca .
to the respective attitudes of the parties or the lines of his recommendation.
1 ~ — U-L-lVy j^dJL LI 1 C ±±±lCk> UL HID -L — 1 ' p
rapporteur would probably ask for a credit to allow him to take legal a
(This last proposal seemed useless, but the delegation did not feel it could pre
the rapporteur from getting any help he might feel he required; it isun ers
that the Iranians actually objected; in any case, the proposal did not app
m the draft report received.) ' " ,• p
18. On the afternoon of the 25th May a cleverly drafted report (Appen 1 j
was received from Signor Soragna. Without entering into details it r® .
the course of discussions at Rome and at Geneva in such general terms