File 4480/1923 Pt 2 ‘Persian Gulf: Naval Incidents: Visits of British Warships to Persian Ports: Persian Territorial Waters Bill.’ [‎307r] (624/1662)

1
1/CScU / CjM ^tPS Ik
A * (^ty'di TX^ft- Ck^tMx (J^L . Dv/ . ^ /c
Article 3.
Sa Majeste imperiale le Shah de Perse accordera aux navires de Sa Maieste
britannique,de la marine royale des Indes, et de la flotte auxiliaire dans les ports
et les eaux territoriales persanes, et Sa Majeste britannique accordera aux vaisseanx
de guerre persans dans'les ports et les eaux territoriales du Royaume-Uni, des Indes
et de toutes les colonies britanniques les facilites et les privileges consacres par-%
%sage international habituel, et qui ne doivent etre d’aucune faqon moins favorables
Je eeux accordes aux navires de guerre d'une autre Puissance quelconque.
Les hautes parties contractantes conviennent de ne pas insister sur le preavis
habituel pour chaque visite rendue aux ports de Fun quelconque des territoires
nentionnes au paragraphe precedent par un vaisseau de guerre de 1 ’autre haute
nartie contractante stationne dans les eaux avoisinantes a ce territoire, pourvu que
es noms des vaisseaux de guerre stationnes dans le voisinage aient ete recemment
;ommuniques au Gouvernement du territoire interesse, et que les autorites locales
,oient prevenues de la visite au plus tot et autant que possible d’avance.
• ft. 7^.^^ & 4 ^6 ‘fco
5. Article 3. After reading through this article, "his Highness at once objected
to the second paragraph. I said the second paragraph merely consecrated in treaty
form the arrangements existing to-day. Taimourtache replied that to-day’s
arrangements were admittedly only temporary, and to include this clause in the
treaty would be very wounding to Persian amour-'pro Y pre. I then cited the precedent
referred to in the third paragraph of Admiralty letter to Lord Monteagle of the
1st May, in which it is stated that British, French, Belgian and German vessels of
the North Sea Fishery Patrol being regularly employed in that area could call at any
port without previous notice. His Highness argued that this evidently was an
international arrangement in the mutual interest of four countries and he did not
consider this as a precedent for the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. . I replied that I did not agree with
his contention, and it seemed to me impracticable and cumbersome that every time
one of the vessels stationed in the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. wished to call at a Persian port a
formal request had to be made through this Legation. If this was so, I said, it would
be necessary to count at least a week on each occasion before the necessary authority
was obtained. I then cited two instances when this would be most inconvenient :
\(i) in the case of a vessel wishing to oil at Abadan; ( 6 ) in case His Majesty’s consul-
general at Bushire had suddenly, at short notice, to cross the Gulf to somewhere on
the Arab side. His Highness replied that as regards oiling at Abadan, he was quite
prepared to meet us and to arrange that notification to the local Governor should^ be
sumcient. The latter would be given authority to allow the vessel to oil at Abadan
without reference to Tehran. As regards the second case, he pointed out that I had
on occasion pressed for urgent permission for an aeroplane to cross Persian territory,
and he recalled one occasion on which this permission had been granted and settled
withm two hours. He was quite prepared to guarantee to me that in urgent cases
permission could be as quickly obtained for the visit of warships. It was not, he went
°n to say, that the Persian Government wished to prevent British warships calling
^ Persian ports, but it was simply a question of amour-propr'e for the Persian
ojttmment not to put into the treaty an arrangement such as that proposed in the
Paragraph of article 3 whereby British warships could go in and out of
^ p$rts whenever they liked and without previous notice. While not accepting
G tnjkm^qs’s point of view I said we had better go on with the next art icle.
.P-)
I
Id. L article 3 ne pent pas, a mon avis, figurer dans nn traite perpetuel, cai es
wantages du traitement de la nation la plus favorisee doivent etre soumis a un e ai.
Pas preferabJe de regler la question des bateaux de guerre par un protocole ;
f ? me fai sant corps au traite, si vous voulez, ou Ton pourrait donner plus de regularite
a la question ?
^1- Quant a 1’article meme :
/i’l ^^driez-vous in’expliquer la signification de la “ flotte auxiliaire ^
w-) Je prefererais voir employe le meme terme de “ navire ^ on vaisseaux
pour les deux parties, etanfc donne que je proposerai d ajouter apres Qes
colonies britanniques” et avant “ les facilites ” : “ tant que lesdits navires
(ou vaisseaux) des deux hautes parties contractantes se, conferment aux
Iqi s et reglements en vigueur dans ces ports et territoires.