Coll 28/67 ‘Persia. Annual Reports, 1932–’ [‎69r] (137/644)

37
[10152] D 3
declared the incident closed and asked for an early settlement of other incidents
arising from the activities of the Persian navy. At about the same time the
Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs was told unofficially that no building had
taken place at Basidu, but only a few minor repairs.
224. His Majesty’s Government did not favour the issue of a further
^ communique, but the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs stated a few days later
that the Shah had lost all interest in this point. His Majesty’s Government also
stated that the question of the withdrawal of the guard could not be considered
until the reaction of the Persian Government to the note was known.
225. The Persian Government were very reluctant to accept the categorical
terms of the note of the 23rd September, and His Majesty’s Charge d’Affaires
more than once felt it necessary to urge members of the Ministry for Foreign
Affairs not to prolong the incident by returning a reply that was anything but a
simple acknowledgment. Their reply, however, which was signed by Kazemi (who
had meanwhile taken over the Ministry) and was dated the 8th October, after
expressing pleasure at the closing of the incident, raised two points. The first
concerned the exact wording of assurance (c), and was of minor importance. The
second was a complaint regarding the publicity given to the incident, doubtless
added from a desire to have the last word.
226. This reply was still being considered when news was received of the
arrest of the Persian Mudir of Customs by the naval guard on the 9th October,
and the Basidu crisis entered on its second phase.
227. The mudir had, it appeared, on the evening of the 9th October, gone on
board a dhow A term adopted by British officials to refer to local sailing vessels in the western Indian Ocean. (a Persian dhow A term adopted by British officials to refer to local sailing vessels in the western Indian Ocean. as it happened) lying at anchor off the British
area, and had asked to see the master’s papers. On coming ashore he was asked
by the officer in charge of the guard to explain his conduct. He replied that he
considered “ British ” Basidu and its waters to be Persian territory, and that he
had acted in accordance with his instructions, which were to carry out his duties
in any part of Basidu. The mudir, who had been warned on previous occasions
not to trespass in the ‘ ‘ British ' ’ area, was then taken with his ferrash on board
H.M.S. Lupin. At an enquiry held on board the following morning, he went back
on his statement of the previous evening, and alleged that he had°merely paid a
private visit to the dhow A term adopted by British officials to refer to local sailing vessels in the western Indian Ocean. . Later, His Majesty’s Government in the United
Kingdom decided that he should be taken to Bandar Abbas and handed over to
his superior authorities there.
228. It was generally agreed that whatever justification or lack of
justification there might have been for the arrest of the mudir, it was desirable
to enter a protest against his intrusion into the ££ British ” area before the
Persian Government could enter a protest against his arrest.
229. A note was accordingly sent to the Minister for Foreign Affairs on the
14th October, complaining of the incident and stating that the mudir’s action was
a clear breach of the status c[uo, under which His Majesty’s Government exercised
exclusive rights in the ££ British ” area.
230. At the same time His Majesty’s Charge d’Affaires expressed to the
Foreign Office the utmost concern at the effect which this arrest might have on
Anglo-Persian relations and the results which might follow if the Persian
Government raised the whole question of the status of Basidu.
231. These apprehensions were soon justified, and on the 19th October a
note was received from the Minister for Foreign Affairs protesting vigorously
against the pretensions of His Majesty’s Government, which had" they said,
grown from a claim to keep a coal depot to a claim to exercise jurisdiction; the
note also denied the relevance of the status quo agreement, in view of the fact
that the Peisian Government never had, and never would, recognise any British
proprietory rights at Basidu, and asked for the punishment of the officers
responsible for the arrest.
232. At the same time a series of exceedingly unsatisfactory notes were
received regarding the visit to Tamb and the various dhow A term adopted by British officials to refer to local sailing vessels in the western Indian Ocean. cases. The tone of
these notes were undoubtedly prompted by extreme annoyance at the mudir
incident.