File 3104/1915 Pt 9 ‘Mesopotamia: Trade with- Payments from enemy assets in England to firms in Mesopotamia; payment of dividends of British companies, legacies, &c to residents in Mesopotamia; Messrs. Selim Homsy’s claims against clients in Mosul district; Messrs. Andrew Weir & Co’s claim against Idara Nahrieh’ [‎192v] (10/334)

at the definite conclusion that the certificate of
’friendly occupation’ added nothing to the General
Licence - i.e. it did not authorise payment of pre
war debts, and the communications we addressed to
Baghdad and to merchants were meaningless or
misleading,(little or no harm can however have been
done, apart from the creation of some unnecessary
correspondence)•
The Board of Trade now take their stand on the terms
of the Peace Treaty, the main points being that
Ottoman Subjects in Mesopotamia will have the option
of retaining their nationality, and that the Board
of Trade cannot prejudice the future arrangements for
the settlement of claims against Turkey by releasing
any property that may fall to be dealt with as
Turkish property. The position now resulting is,
therefore, as follows -
(i) Won-enemy Subjects in Mesopotamia may be paid
any monies due to them;
.
(ii) Enemy Subjects cannot be paid until the
Peace Treaty has come into force and they have
renounced their right to retain enemy nationality.
(ii) does not apply, I have ascertained from
the Board of Trade, to payments arising out of trade
transactions undertaken since the general licence came
into force. But It applies to pre-war debts and
property generally, and, as will be seen from the
papers below, to dividends (case of the Euphrates and
iigris oteam Navigation Company) and to payments
under i/ills (cases of Mr.Eollett, flag B,^Miss Sopher j
flag C).
The position is, from the point of view of the
Mesopotamian, unfortunate, and it would no doubt be
a good thing politically if the existing embargoes
could