Coll 17/15(1) 'Perso-Iraq Relations: Persia-Iraq frontier; Persia's claim in the Shatt-el-Arab' [‎74v] (159/961)

(
documents and concrete facts, bearing witness to the exercise by the State of sovereignty over ti
whole width of the watercourse. Such a boundary must be proved; it cannot be assumed, h ,
of doubt the boundary line will be the middle of the river bed . or the thalweg.” r.
purposes of such proof, the Erzerum text is manifestly inadequate. The Iraqi representative»!'
in vain to make good the manifest inadequacy of its terms by stressing the fact that, in 18=0 ?
frontier—so he alleges—was fixed by joint agreement at the bank. The assertion that 5
agreement existed is categorically denied. A memorandum from the two members of th
Commission—British and Russian—on December 17th, 1851, states that they cannot overcoJ
“ the difficulties arising out of the conflicting claims in regard to Muhammara ”, and that “ noZ
of the common frontier has yet been delimited That assuredly cannot be the agreement regard^
the Treaty of Erzerum by the voluntary execution of its clauses to which the Iraqi representaZ
referred yesterday, and still less can it be that definite, categorical and explicit formula require
by the accepted rules for the interpretation of treaties in order to eliminate doubt, whk
is inadmissible in ordinary law. On the contrary, the history of the water frontier shows that
it is in flagrant disagreement with the letter of Erzerum and with established practice, that in
view of the Ottoman indifference to exclusive sovereignty from bank to bank, the Declaration
of London of July 29th, 1913, should have handed over the whole of the river to the Porte only
to place it under "the exclusive authority of another nation.
Nevertheless, Persia, if it were a matter of accepting the internationalisation of the
Shatt-al-Arab, might reply that that internationalisation presupposes equal sovereignty over
the two halves of the river for each riparian State. Iraq had not been bom when the delegate
of Persia, never questioning this river regime for the Shatt-al-Arab, asked at the Barcelona
Conference that it should be extended to the Tigris. The notion of exclusiveness, of river privilege
which was unknown to the Ottoman Empire but by which Iraq is now obsessed, is not in keeping
with freedom of communications, which is one of the principles of the Covenant. The Iraqi repre.
sentative boasted yesterday of the excellence of the regulations and of the Iraqi control of the river
However well organised that control may be, it is none the less clear that it is unilateral. It applies
moreover, not only to merchantmen, but also to warships. To place the warships of one riparian
State under the unilateral and exclusive supervision of the other, in a river common to both is
prejudicial to the dignity of that State and to respect for its sovereignty—in a word, it is
inadmissible.
The representative of Iraq thought fit, in conclusion, to ask the Council that, pending the
delimitation, by a legal act, of the frontier between Iraq and Persia, that frontier should remain
as it now exists according to Iraq’s contention.
My Government cannot agree to that.
It is not in keeping with the general principles of law, with the nature of the Council’s powers,
with the character of the question submitted to you, with the fact that Persia became a Member
of the League before Iraq, that the Council should be asked provisionally to adjudicate in favour
of the claims of Iraq.
. P^r^ia entered the League in order to maintain, on a legal basis, territorial integrity and political
m ependence, she cannot agree that, on the inadmissible basis of alleged conventions, notone
o v ich embodies agreement freely constituted between two national wills regularly constituted,
e exercise of her sovereignty should be impeded, restricted or disturbed bv a claim which is
Covemit 0mSIT1, excludes all compromise and which is contrary to all the principles of the
. Llke ^ ra T Persia considers that a frontier is indispensable to a State; but a frontier, in her
I 18 ^ a hostlle > aggressive line, which constricts the development of one party to the advantage
nn A 0 • er> 1 • 18 a P a . rt ^ t ^ on \ n g.P ne - 0 P e n to the free communications of both the sovereign States;
TYrnr-w^rt Vn ^ ^ Pfrt^ular, it implies the equal use without considerations of superiority, of a
in °Sr iCh r tUre has P laced between two States in order to unite them and in which, meeting
ohsprvino- tZ 1 ’ e " rnUi> t leam, by joint administration, to associate with one another, both
obsemng the same respect for their mutual rights and duties.
elsewhA^AZ^ 0 ^ 0 t " ar have never ceased and will never cease, in the Shatt-al-Arab and
freedom of naiZZo ?' ^nnctions of international law. They have never imperilled the
of Ba^ra • we p 10n U * Il: 18 ^ 10t * or t b em t0 comply with the unilateral regulations of the port
I ha’ve Lid InoTTr rec °S? lsed /b" 86 regulations and we shall not do so"
our duties of indeoenHp ° c l ea rly the rights of Persia and the attitude dictated to us by
I mav add ?h?f l ’ dlgmt J and ^P^ for the principles of the Covenant,
the Council may desire 3 ™ as^me^ t0 t0 ^ questions which the Rapporteur appomtedby
shouM lilc^to I makekne^preIknkiaiy 0 generJ < rem^k. SUbStanCe ° f the differenCe
made here by thSZynreserifqf 80111 ^ 0 ^ t ,°. t ^. e Council by both parties, as well as in the statements
between the' Ottoman Emnirp Z U ^ la 18 ment l° ne d as having been a partv to the arrangements
of Erzerumand theTprotocol^f Pe f r81a re ^ din g their frontiers. ThcSe a^e facts. The Treaty
Russian Government ^ n> antmo ple bear the signatures of representatives of the then
thought fit to take in°i™terferinZI. 1 ->vZ"Z ’ " bateyer action the old Imperial Government of Ru«> a
the present Soviet Government h U Z- 10 de b ni bation of the frontier between two other States,
such action. The Soviet Govern iZ n ? t v m ? t0 do ' vd b the policy or the interests which prompt
between Persia and" Irao Vs nnlv 11 . 18 ^crcfore not interested in either solution of the conflic
namely, to see the difference settled ^ lnt f rest 13 the 531116 as that of other Members of the Council"