Coll 28/67 ‘Persia. Annual Reports, 1932–’ [‎9v] (18/644)

16
94. The terms of the draft convention were finally agreed to by all
the interested departments in London in March, and were communicated to the
Iraqi Government in the same month. On the 29th March the Iraqi Government
agreed in principle to the representation of His Majesty’s Government on the
Conservancy Board, though they expressed doubts as to whether this would be
acceptable to the Persian Government. They hesitated over some of the police
provisions, which appeared to derogate from full Iraqi sovereignty, but agre^l^j,
that these might be discussed later.
95. This draft provided that the board should, for a minimum of fifty years,
control the lighting, buoying, pilotage, dredging and navigation of the river, with
powers to levy such dues as were necessary for these purposes; they might also
enforce, by fines and otherwise, police and sanitary regulations, and retain vessels
which had not fulfilled their obligations to the customs and other authorities of
the riparian States; the board was to take over the assets and liabilities of the
Basra Port Trust; a report was to be submitted annually to the three Powers, and
a copy sent to the League of Nations; the convention was not to affect the rights
and duties of the three Powers as neutrals or belligerents. It also provided that
the three members should annually elect from among themselves a chairman, who
should be eligible for re-election. Subsequent to the communication of the draft
to the Iraqi and Persian Governments, it was proposed that an attempt should
be made to secure an understanding that the British member should be both
chairman and chief executive officer for the first ten years. His Majesty’s High
Commissioner strongly recommended that Colonel Ward, the head of the Basra
Port Trust, should be the first British member. An article in the original draft
providing that the Iraqi Government might terminate the agreement if the
volume of shipping using Persian ports fell below a certain figure was dropped
by common consent before the draft was communicated to the Persian Govern
ment, as likely to revive the territorial issue and be otherwise objectionable.
96. When the question of rectification had first been mooted, one of the
counters with which the Iraqi Government had toyed had been an alteration of the
frontier near Khanaqin so as to bring the whole of the Naft Khaneh oil-field into
Iraq. Shortly after his return from Europe, Teymourtache, when discussing
Sir Francis Humphrys’s visit, indicated that one of the points which needed
clearing up between Persia and Iraq was this self-same section of frontier; he
maintained that the commissioners of 1914 had failed to follow the directions of
the Constantinople protocol in this area, and that the whole Naft Khaneh field
should by rights be included in Persia. There was no apparent ground for this
assertion. He also argued that the work of the commission had never been
finished or ratified by Persia, and that the settlement had therefore no juridical
force. This thesis is quite untenable in view of the terms of the Constantinople
protocol, as Teymourtache virtually admitted immediately after he had
advanced it.
97. Sir Francis Humphrys visited Tehran early in April and succeeded in
obtaining from the Minister of Court a general acceptance of the principle of a
tripartite conservancy board to deal also with the Haffar Channel and the
Bahmanshir and with lighting and buoying in the Gulf; it was agreed that
negotiations should open shortly at Bagdad and that, in the meanwhile,
Mr. Carroll, the American engineer in charge of the southern railway, should
visit Basra and study the technical side of the question with Colonel Ward. In
the course of these discussions Teymourtache indicated that in his opinion there
was a future for both Mohammerah and Bandar Shahpur, and that Bandar
Shahpur might never have been developed had the Persian Government seen any
prospect three or four years before of establishing friendly relations with Iraq.
98. The question may have been mentioned during King Feisal’s visit to
Tehran at the end of April, but no developments of importance occurred. The
Persian Government were, however, induced, with the able help of the Resident
Director of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, to drop their claim to the Naft
Khaneh oil-field, and to be content with an arrangement as to the division of the
royalty which would be much more profitable than a territorial ad justment, which
would render the oil-field valueless.