Coll 17/15(2) 'Relations with Persia: Persia-Iraq frontier; Persia's claim in the Shatt-el-Arab' [‎497v] (1003/1010)

never entered into force and is contested by the Persian Government. This con
tention is presumably based upon the fact that the Protocol v as ire's er ratified and
i cm ores the fact that that Instrument did not require ratification in order to become
operative. Mr. Amery understands that it has been advanced more than once by
the Persian Government and has been controverted by British representatives in
Persia. It might be desirable nevertheless, in view of the tendency of oriental
Governments to regard any mis-statement which passes unchallenged as having
been accepted, that the opportunity should be taken to controvert it once again.
3 . I am accordingly to suggest, for the consideration of bir Austen
Chamberlain, that Sir R. Clive should be instructed, if he has not already done so,
to deny in categorical terms the contention in Teymourtache’s letter of the 19th of
April. ^ The opportunity might also be taken to protest against the reference, in the
following sentence of Teymourtache’s letter, to the Basra Port Office at Abadan as
representing u une authorite malveillante a notre egard and to point out that any
hostility that may have been shown in the past has not been on the side of the
4 Iraq Government who on many occasions during the last few years have gone out
of their way to assist the Persian Government when in difficulties (notably on the
occasion of the grain shortage in Teheran in 1925 and 1926) and have always shown
themselves willing to meet the Persian Government in the matter of the establish
ment of friendly relations between the two countries.
I am,
Sir,
Your most obedient servant,
(Sd.) A. J. Harding.
The Under Secretary of State, Foreign Office.
No. 320
British Legation^
Gulhek,
29th June, 1928.
Sir,
As I had the honour to report in my telegram No. 121 of June 25th I had
a long conversation that day with the Minister of the Court. I purposely had not
hurried to act on the authority given me in your telegram No. 75 of June 9th to
pump His Excellency as to what he meant by an u exchange of views ”, as I
thought it v 7 as better not to appear too eager.
2 . As I stated in my telegram No. 110 of June 5 th my impression had been
that Teymourtache wished to discuss the position that might conceivably arise in
the event of Anglo-Soviet hostilities ; I still believe that on June 3 rd, the date of
our conversation, he had that in mind. In the past three weeks however the
Shah’s anxiety on that score has abated and I have reason to believe that the
Soviet Ambassador has stated most clearly that the last thing that the Russians
desire is war with England.
3. The question raised at my interview by Teymourtache was quite un
expected. I had heard rumours of slight trouble on the Turco-Persian frontier with
Kurdish bands but that is nothing unusual. I was unaware that the Turks had, as
Te^momtache alleged, deliberately advanced their frontier posts in two or three
places to the old line and were actually encouraging Turkish Kurds, whom they
professed to have disarmed, to make raids into Persia. ° When I asked: Teymourtache