File 200/1928 Pt 10 'Persia: Anglo-Persian Relations. Treaty Negotiations' [‎407r] (814/868)

17
4. It should be noted that the words “ . . . . de 1’esclavage et . .
which appeared in the fourth line of Article 4 in the version already authorised,
have now been deleted. The word <c esclavage ” does not appear in the treaty
article or in the preamble to the protocol, and as the agreement refers only to
maritime control, “la traite ” is sufficient. There is, too, a danger that the
—(^Persians might otherwise claim an interest in the internal affairs of the Arab
Sheikhdoms.
5. Note also that in article 4, line 3, “ et ” has been replaced by “ ou dans.”
A rticle XI.—Zahedan {Duzdap) Railway.
1. A final decision regarding the wording of the treaty article and protocol
was not reached till mid-January 1934; the text then adopted will be found in
Annex D below.
2. The attached copies of correspondence between His Majesty’s Repre
sentatives at Tehran and the Persian Minister for Foreign Affairs show the
previous history of the question in sufficient detail. Briefly, in October 1930,
when the negotiations were on the point of breaking down. Sir R. Clive submitted
to Feroughi a memorandum outlining the British terms (the actual wording of
this memorandum, it may be noted, had not been approved by His Majesty’s
Government). No notice was taken of the memorandum until September 1931,
when the Persians, inconvenienced by the closure of the railway in June of that
year, intimated their acceptance of the British proposals, in the hope of securing
the immediate reopening of the railway in advance of a treaty settlement. In
announcing this acceptance of “ the tenor of the British memorandum,” Feroughi
put forward a French draft of his own which, though corresponding in essentials
to Sir R. Clive’s terms, contained certain omissions and alterations of secondary
importance. On the 1st November, 1931, Sir R. Hoare sent Feroughi a reply, in
which he took note of the Persian acceptance of the British proposals, and stated
that, notwithstanding the altered conditions then obtaining, His Majesty’s
Government would be prepared to regard the proposals “ as constituting an
agreement to come into force as part of a wider settlement,” subject to one minor
addition, viz., a paragraph providing for reasonable notice to be given in the
event of either party wishing to increase the freight rates and fares on their
section of the stretch between Zahedan and Nushki. No mention was made of
Feroughi’s draft in this reply.
3. The Persian Government have made repeated efforts to secure the
reopening of the railway in advance of the treaty settlement. The only occasion
on which His Majesty’s Government responded to these advances was m August
1931, when an offer was made to reopen the railway in exchange for a
prolongation of the permission accorded to Imperial Airways, Limited, to use
the South Persian route. This offer was not accepted by the Persians.
4. Meanwhile, at Sir R. Hoare’s suggestion, the Government of India
recently furnished His Majesty’s Legation with a draft contract for the purchase
by the Persian Government of the necessary railway material, and this contract
was in due course communicated to the Railway Department at Tehran (who had
asked for it in December 1932) with a covering intimation that delivery could be
effected within a stated period from the conclusion of an agreement for the
transfer of the Persian section of the line.
Annex.
(A)— Sir R. Clive's Aide-memoire of October 1, 1930.
Mon cher Ministre,
Je m’empresse de vous faire parvenir ci-joint Taide-memoire au sujet du
chemin de fer de Dozdab que je vous ai promis lors de notre conversation du
29 septembre. En le parcourant, vous vous rendrez compte des grands sacrifices
que mon Gouvernement est pret a faire pour regler, une fois pour toutes, cette
question difficultueuse. Vous conviendrez, j’en suis persuade, que les nouvelles
propositions dont il s’agit fournissent la preuve la plus concluante de sa volonte
d’aboutir.
Pour ce qui est de la forme que doit revetir Taccord a ce sujet, mon
Gouvernement est nettement de Tavis qu’un article concis dans le Traite general,.
[9524] d