File 4011/1923 Pt 1 'PERSIAN GULF NEGOTIATIONS 1928-33. BASIDU.' [‎490v] (985/1306)

4
** Teh. Deep. 54,
July 6 1926 , P.2604.
* Adm. to F.O.,
Oct. 15 1926 , P.3629.
t P.O.to I.O., Nov. 6
1926, P. 3847.
t G. of I. to I.O.,
Jan. 6 1927,
P. 376/27.
§ F.O. to I.O., Jan. 4
1927, P. 67/27.
|| A.M. to F.O.,
July 27 1927, P.3751.
1 F.O. to A.M.,
Aug. 11 1927,
P. 4969/27.
Teh. Desp. 455,
Sept. 21 1927.
P. 4969/27.
Se nior Naval Otticer
to Adm., 1136/12
Aug. 12 1928,
P. 4315.
property possessed by His Majesty s Government in the coalimr
Basiduand Henjamand tne status of the concession and the at
for its retention underwent further investigation by the Home d §Ument 8
concerned and by the Government of India. partln eiits
18. The Admiralty expressed the view that the coaling stations
required,’* while, from a different standpoint, the Foreign Office in C o
with a complaint received about this time from Persia of the’refusTf 1 ? ^
British Agent at Basidu to pay customs dues, remarked that in v '
the effect on the status of Henjam of admitting the Persian claim to fT^
“ it would be dangerous to allow doubt to be cast on the validity Ti
British rights to Basidu, which rest on undisturbed occupation 0 yp r !Ji j
period.”! The report of the Government of India reaffirmed the • I
expressed by their predecessors in 1868 (para. 1 I above) as to the shtil^
Basidu, and added that the station was maintained solely for noi; t \°
reasons and as a bargaining counter in negotiations for the recoin iti on f
the British position in Henjam or for some other consideration. + r jy
regarded it as essential that neither Basidu, after relinquishment nor
other fuelling station in the Gulf should be leased by Persia to any other
Power.
19. An amicable settlement of the Persian complaint referred to in
para. 18 was reachedg and it proved possible to avoid any formal dismal,,
of the general question with Persia.
20. The Air Ministry, having in July 1927 ;j raised the question of i
establishing a seaplane base at Basulu, were referred by the Foreign Office
to the opinion expressed by the Government of India, and informed that
Basidu was retained “mainly as a possible asset in negotiations with the
Persian (iovernmentthat the British position in it was extremely weal
and that there would be the strongest political objection to their proposal!
21. The possibility of an arrangement with Persia in respect of henjan
on the basis of surrender of Basidu was touched on in unofficial
discussion between Sir L. Haworth and the Belgian Director-General of
Customs in September 1927, and was well received ; but the malter was not I
pursued.
Incident of August—September 1928.
22. There were no further developments till August 1928, when the
Senior Naval Officer in the Gulf reported that the Persian Customs official
in Persian Basidu, who had previously told the British caretaker that J’ersian
troops would occupy British Basidu in a few weeks, claimed the right, under i
instructions from Bnndar Abbas, to collect taxes in British Basidu, in which, j
he said, the British flag had no more significance than a consular flag.
23. The Political Resident A senior ranking political representative (equivalent to a Consul General) from the diplomatic corps of the Government of India or one of its subordinate provincial governments, in charge of a Political Residency. requested the Senior Naval Officer to keep a
ship off Basidu, and, should Persia attempt to occupy the concession, state |
that this could not be permitted without the orders of His Majesty’s
Government. r l he Government of India, who were seriously disturbed by J
the Persian threat, which was closely followed by an attempt by the Persian
Customs Mudir, which was prevented by the Captain of H.M.S. Lupin, to 1
arrest a man within the concession, urged that His Majesty’s Government I
should either—
(a) warn Persia that any molestation of British Basidu would he f
regarded as an unfriendly act ; or , .
(b) send a small landing party to remain in Basidu until the situation t
cleared.
24. The foreign Office saw objection to the first alternative, which they
thought likely to provoke a definite challenge by Persia, as did the Charge
d Affaires, leheran. As regards the second, they were not prepared to ta e
any action which might lead to an incident at Basidu, and so could not agree i
to the landing of a. party save with orders to withdraw under p rotes ,. 1
challenged, lo action on these lines the Admiralty, with whom the n I
Office agreed, saw strong objection. The India Office The department of the British Government to which the Government of India reported between 1858 and 1947. The successor to the Court of Directors. suggested m l I
circumstances reversion to action on the lines taken by Sir L. b avv0
described in para. 23 above.