File 200/1928 Pt 4 'Persia: Anglo-Persian Relations. General Settlement and Treaty Negotiations' [‎35r] (74/1256)

r«This Docament U the Property of His Brita nnic Maj esty’s Gogernment .j
o : _ ^
rERS1A 5013
August 19, 1929
CONFIDENTIAL
[^4085/19/34
Section 1.
9
No. 1.
Sir R. Clive to- Mr. A. Henderson.—{Received August 19.)
gso. 426.) Gulhek, August 10, 1929.
5 AS authorised in your telegram No. 226 of the 29th July, I arranged to see the
Minister of Court this morning, when I left with him an outline of the proposed
general treaty. I have the honour to enclose a copy. .
2 I told his Highness that I did not propose to-day to discuss the treaty in
detail, but I suggested that we should read through together the articles at present
drafted, when I would give such explanations as I could, and he could make sucn
comments as occurred to him. . . l u a
3. As regards Article 1. I explained that as a concession to the views ne nad
expressed to me last winter, His Majesty’s Government had been prepared to inclu e
a non-aggression clause. At the same time the clause had been amplihed in a
reciprocal sense so as to cover the various sheikhdoms and rulers on the south side
of the Gulf, together with the Kingdom of Iraq. He made no comment except to ask
whether this included Bahrein. I said, yes, but we would come to the article on
Bahrein later. , ,1 ^
4. Article 2. His Highness suggested the audition of a phrase at the end not
less favourable than that accorded to any other Power.” I said I imagined tins
was unnecessary but that I would submit the point to you , i
5 Article 3 After reading through this article, his Highness at once objected
to the second paragraph. I said the second paragraph merely consecrated m treaty
form the arrangements existing to-day. Taimourtache replied that to-day
arrangements were admittedly only temporary, and to include this c ause m the
treaty would be very wounding to Persian amour-propre. I then cited the precedent
referred to in the third paragraph of Admiralty letter to Lord Monteagle of t
1st May in which it is stated that British, French, Belgian and German vessels of
the North Sea Fishery Patrol being regularly employed m 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 por 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.
(a) 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
sufficient. 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 °ut 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
within two hours. He was quite prepared to guarantee to me that in
permission could be as quickly obtained for the visit of wars | P/- ’ ii; n „
on to say, that the Persian Government wished to prevent British warships ca g
at Persian ports, but it was simply a question of amwr-TO-e f °r the 1 ersia
Government not to put into the treaty an arrangement such as that proposed m tne
Second paragraph 0 P f article 3 wher by British warship could go in and o of
Persian ports whenever they liked and without previous n ° t J c ®, a rttle
his Highness’s point of view I said we had better go on with the next ar ,
5. Article 4 (Henjam). His Highness was inclined to think that to put
lono- article in its present form into the treaty was too cumbersome and that at any
r ite the greater part of the article could be attached as an annex to the treaty. W e
ken reacf through the article, and he said that while there were certain things to
[884 1—1] B