Coll 28/99 ‘Persia. Anglo-Persian Relations. Treaty negotiations, 1937– (Perso-Baluch Frontier Demarcation)’ [‎47r] (93/275)

that they had telegraphed orders to Bushire to remove the flags and guards
from A bn Musa and Tamb, while reserving their right to discuss with ITis
Majesty’s Government the respective claims to the island. Their Note,t
however, stated that Persia considered “ these two islands as its property,”
and proposed that “ neither party ” should hoist flags in them pending
settlement of the question.
21 . The Note of reply sent to the Persian Government on 15th June
1904, while expressing willingness to transmit to the Government of India
any proofs that the claims of Persia to the ownership of these islands
outweighed those of the Sheikh of Shargah, stated that the suggestion that
the Sheikh of Shargah should not be permitted to replace his flag, hauled
down by the Persian Customs officials, could not be accepted, and went on :
“I would remind you, in this connection, that we have not insisted on the
Persian Government removing their flag from the island of Sirri till the
controversy between the two Governments as to the ownership of the
island, which originated many years ago, has been reciprocally settled.
The position would have been different if the Sheikh of Shargah had removed
an existing flag from Tamb and Abu Musa; what he did was to hoist his
own flag upon the islands, which were not yet formally occupied by any
other Government, and he has the right to fly it as the first occupant until
his lawful possession of these islands is disproved.”
22. The Persian flags were removed, and the Jowasimi flag of the Chief
of Shargah re-hoisted in June 1904. No serious attempt was made by
Persia to produce proof of Persian ownership,* and the discussion lapsed,
though in 1905 a complaint by Persia of the erection of new buildings at
Tamb by the Sheikh of Shargah was investigated and found to be baseless.f
23. The opportunity was taken to make it clear to Persia that the status
of Sirri was still mb judice, a view in which she acquiesced, and the Persian
Government were warned in 1905 that “ the revival of their claim to Tamb
meant the revival of ours to Sirri.”
V.—Status of Sirri, 1909.
24. The question of granting a concession to mine red oxide on Sirri
having arisen in 1908-9, His Majesty’s Government, after consultation with
the Government of India, informedj a British firm that, while the status of
the island was in dispute, they had never acquiesced in the Persian claim
to dispose of concessions on it regardless of Great Britain ; and the Minister
at Teheran presented a protest to the Persian Government in April 1909
against their action in granting a concession, in which he reminded them of
the caveat entered by His Majesty’s Government and asked them to arrange
for the discontinuance of operations on the island by their concessionnaire.§
VI.—1912-3 : Erection of a Lighthouse on Tamb Island. Communications
to Persian Government and to Sheikh of Shargah.
25. Early in 1912 it was decided to erect and maintain a lighthouse
on Tamb Island.|j With the approval of His Majesty’s Government no
communication on the subject was made to Persia,^ but the Political
Resident, Sir Percy Cox, was authorised** to obtain the consent of the
Sheikh of Shargah, which was granted by the Sheikh subject to an
assurance that his rights of sovereignty were not affected.ff Sir Percy Cox
in writing to the Sheikh, added that while it was desirable that the Shargah
flag should always be en evidence on Tamb, “now at all events this island
will be preserved for you by the mere presence of the lighthouse.”
26. In October 1912, in reply to an enquiry by the Governor of the
Gulf Ports, Sir Percy Cox statedthat, with the concurrence of the Sheikh
of Shargah, a light was about to be erected there. His Excellency replied
that “ there was no doubt that the island properly belonged to Persia and
that they had to thank the blatant action of the Customs in 1904 for spoiling
their case in regard thereto. 1 rejoined that we considered . . . that it
+ June U 1904,
P. 2904/04.
* Lor. i, 746, 2138.
t Teh. tel. to Pol.
Res., May 20 1905,
P. 1116/05 ; Pol.
Res. to Teh., June 1
1905.
Lor. i, 2138.
X S. of S. for I. to
Viceroy, May 13
1908, P. 3168 ; F.O.
to Teh., Sept. 19
1908, P. 3853/03 ;
F.O. to Messrs.
Ellinger, Jan. 29
1909, P. 2924/08.
§ Teh. tel. 306 to
F.O., April 23 190
P. 3301/09.
j| P. 642/12.
% Lord Crewe to (}.
of I., Secret Dt'sp. 9,
Mar. 22 1912, P. 972;
Tel. from Viceroy,
May 21 1912, P. 1934.
** Tel. from S. of S.
for 1. to Viceroy,
June 13 1912,
P. 2229/12.
ft Letters from Pol.
Res. to Sheikh,
Sept. 28 1912,
Oct.22 1912. P.4954.
XX Letter from Pol.
Res. to G. of I.,
Oct 13 1912,
P. 4778/12.