File 2764/1904 Pt 5 'Baghdad Railway: Anglo-Turkish negotiations; concessions proposed in respect of Kowait; negotations with Hakki Pasha in London; Anglo-Turkish agreement.' [‎177v] (367/536)

From the report of the mediating commissioners of 185(F- it is plain that they
never visited Hawizeh, or the frontier line which they so airily attempted to lay
down, and that they expressly placed it on record that they had hxed no frontier
in this direction pending farther investigations. . . , , , . I
In any case, Colonel Williams’ diagram (opposite p. 25) is hopelessly inaccurate ;
he shows the Jaab Eiver (Suwaib or Karkheh) as running through Hawizeh instead
of some 16 miles to the west of it. The mere fact that he calk it the Jaabt Eiver
is something of an admission. Major Eawlinson’s map at p. 16 is equally vague, and
he places Hawizeh many miles out of position. .
The commissioners are full of explanations of their boundary line m the neighbour
hood of the Shatt-el- Arab, but I have failed to find any remarks dealing with the
boundary round Hawizeh. Had the commissioners realised the nature of the boundary
they purported to lay down they could scarcely have failed to offer some explanations
in regard thereto, but they are silent—as also, it seems, were the Turkish and Persian
commissioners. , . ,
It should be noted, too, that Sir A. H. Layard, who seems to have been biased on
the whole in favour of Turkey, suggested a boundary which ran west of Hawizeh
(pp. 8 and 53). . . x ^
He was doubtless glad to fix it there from his personal experiences of the district,
in which respect he seems to have had an advantage ovei the commissioners. His
views have been published, and may carry weight with the Turks.
It would (ipp 6 CL 7 ‘ very inexpedient to appeal to Sir H. Layard s published views
respecting the Hawizeh region when in the same passage he has expressed views
regarding the Mohammerah region so decidedly unfavourable to Persia. A. P.
From a reference to p. 10 of Wilson’s precis, it will be seen that in no case can
<< Bussorah and its acknowledged dependencies ” be held to have included in 1639 the
district of Hawizeh, which was then undisputedly Persian.
In 1727, moreover (see p. 55 , precis), it was provided by treaty that the province
of Hawizeh should be ceded to Persia, though it does not appear that the Turks had
ever taken it. From p. 8 of the precis, it will be seen that about 1600 the Ka’ab
applied to the Vali of Hawizeh for assistance against the Afshars ; it was then a
Persian dependency.
This is a mistake : by the Treaty of 1727, Hawizeh was ceded to Turkey, not
Persia: but see enclosure in Sir G. Lowthers despatch No. 341 of the 23rd April,
1912.—A. P.
There is no evidence—it is not even alleged—that the Turks have ever raised a
penny of revenue out of Hawizeh, or had a military post there. On the other hand,
there is strong evidence that Hawizeh has been under Persia and paying revenue
more or less continuously since 1600. It is of importance also to note that in 1877,
when war threatened to break out between Turkey and Persia, the main Persian
army was collected at Bisaitin, a village a few miles north of Shuaib and north
west of Hawizeh, where the Governor-General was occupied in coercing a refractory
sheikh of the Ma’adanJ (for remarks on whom see “ Gazetteer,” p. i 254). The precise
position of Bisaitin has not yet been fixed, but it is a recognised point at or near the
Hawizeh frontier, as locally observed. At the time in question there was no suggestion
that the force was beyond the border of Arabistan, though it is on record that the
presence of troops at Mohammerah was regarded as a menace (Enclosure 5, idem).
Since 1877 the Persians have constantly sent armed forces to collect taxes, &c., and,
as far as I know, on no single occasion has any objection been raised by Turkey.
The most recent occasions are 1905 and 1908 (see pp. 20 and 21 of precis).
With reference to p. 45 of the Foreign Office memorandum, as the Turks have never
occupied the district, there can be no question of their giving it up or abandoning it; as
far as I am aware, they have never seriously laid claim to it, and it has been from time
immemorial in the hands of Turkey and separated from Turkey by a wide marsh (see
resident’s letter of the 6 th May).
* We will defer dealing with the sinuosities and the prolongation of this line, in the direction o
Hawizeh until our engineers have made their investigation of this line in the above-mentioned spots. ^
The Arabic equivalents of “ K,” ‘‘ J,’’ and “ Ch ” are commonly interchangeable, thus Kaab = Jaab —
t See sub-enclosure 1 to enclosure 3 of Resident’s letter of April 8, 1912, to Foreign Department, a copy
of which was sent to His Majesty’s Foreign Office.