Coll 17/15(1) 'Perso-Iraq Relations: Persia-Iraq frontier; Persia's claim in the Shatt-el-Arab' [‎381r] (773/961)

THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OP HIS BRITANNIC MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT
\/*
EASTERN (Iraq).
CON FIDENTIAL.
I
•E 3859/197/341
k
v J \j
June 11, 1934.
Section
No. 1.
Mr. Ogilvie-Forbes to Sir John Simon.—(Received June 11.)
(No. 303.)
Sir, Bagdad, May 30, 1934.
WITH reference to Sir Francis Humphrys’s despatch No. 246 of the
3rd May, I have the honour to transmit to you herewith a translation of a letter
which he received shortly before his departure from the Iraqi Minister for
Foreign Affairs, on the subject of relations between Iraq and Persia and the
present position on their common frontier.
2. The enclosures to Dr. Damluji’s letter provide a useful summary of the
grievances of the Iraqi Government against the Persian authorities, and show
clearly how the alleged activities of the Auromani Kurds on Iraqi soil, which
formed the subject of Sir Francis Humphrys’s despatch No. 264 of the 10th May,
are but one of the many questions which are at present in open dispute between
the two countries. But the acrimonious tone which was developing in the
diplomatic exchanges between the Iraqi and Persian Governments has recently
shown signs of abating, and at an interview between the Minister for Foreign
Affairs and the Persian Minister on the 14th May, which was arranged at the
latter’s special request, Samii Khan adopted a much more conciliatory attitude,
and asked to be enlightened on the Iraqi counter-charges against the Persian
Government. In particular, he requested details of the accusation that the
Persian frontier authorities were conniving at the armed incursions of Persian
tribesmen into Iraq. He also expressed concern at the attacks levelled at Persia
in the Chamber of Deputies on account of the cutting of the Mandali water
supply and the construction of Persian police posts in Iraqi territory, an
suggested that they were calculated to rouse public opinion in Ii a_q. .
3. This afforded Dr. Damluji an opportunity to state the Iraqi complaints
against Persia in these matters (his Excellency did not touch upon the Shatt-ei-
Arab on this occasion), and to reaffirm the adherence of ^
to the frontier laid down by the Demarcation I rotocol o j n o n
Minister expressed himself as grateful for these explanations, an a ^ ®
personal exertions to remove the causes of friction between e w _ ,
He stated that the Persian Government were ready to use al , m ^ ns
armed raids by their tribes into Iraq, and added that e wmi p ^ ,
their attention to the Iraqi complaint that the Persian author ties re f ^^^
grant the extradition of refugees who had committe cr no ^intention
Khan assured Dr Damluji that the Persian Government had no mtentio
whatsoever ^f violating^raqi territory, and that if proof of such violation were
given they would be prepared to remove the cause of offence as g^me tlmeTersia
done in 1931 in the case of a police post near Rljani m. j t p e Mandali
could not recognise the Frontier Demarcation p 10 ? (:0 ' \ „ K ee n cut off
water supply, his Excellency blandly affirmed that the water had never been
and that there was no intention of so doing. for Fore i gn Affairs are not
4. I understand that, while the Iraqi yers - ation they consider that the
inclined to attach much importance to this , . rpa( p ness to discuss Iraqi
moderation of the Persian Minister’s lead ? 0
grievances form a good beginning for fu . Th are nevertheless appre-
a solution of some of the outstanding qu • tp/j ncre ase of military and
hensive, in view of the reports which reach them ofinc ^ Suleimanieh ■ area>
police posts on the Persian side of t f or t y .fi ve Kurdish brigands on
Moreover, two days ago, there was a ra iq y stackers sallied forth over the
an Iraqi post north of Penjvm, in ^ch the ^attackere sa^^.^ ] understand
border, killed four Iraqi policemen, a authorities that this raid had the
unscathed. It is firmly believed by the Iraqi aurum
connivance of the Persian frontier officials.
[131 1—6]
B