" ملف رقم ١٣٥٦ لسنة ١٩١٢ الجزء ٢ "الحدود التركية-الفارسية:- مفاوضات في القسطنطينية. (حدود المحمرة)" [ظ‎‎٢‎٠‎١] (٦٨٠/٤١١)

4
' . . Suleimanieh. —The discussion of the question of Suleimanieh, which occupied the
sittings of the commission from the 11 th July to the 28th August, was opened bv the
irersian delegates in Proces-verbal No. 13 with a definition of the line which, in their
view, constituted the limits of that province, a definition, of which it is only necessarv
o remark that from the point at which it leaves Zohab to where it joins the lesser
in the north, it is practically coincident with the boundary of Suleimanieh as at present
locally observed, and as shown by the chain dotted line on Colonel Maunsell’s reduction
of the identic map (sheet 7 ).
the above delimitation of the frontiers of Suleimanieh was followed on the
31st July (Proces-verbal No. U) hy a definition of these frontiers as understood by the
lurkish members of the commission, and the wide divergence of views which separated
the respective parties on this question will be understood from the fact that this
definition of the Ottoman delegates would, if accepted, extend the borders of
.Suieimanieh from the eastern shore of the Lake of Urmia to Mount Sahend, near Tabriz
and would include in that province districts so far opart as Ushnu, Lahidian B in/
Maragha, Sakiz, in the north, and Pusht-i-Kuh in Zohab, in the south. The argument
on which the Turkish delegates based their claim to this great extent of territory was
apparently, that the limits of Suleimanieh as above enunciated by them were those
{with the exception oi certain sanjaks subsequently detached, and of Mihriban and
Avroman, ceded to Persia by the treaty of 1639) which the province in question had
finally assumed in 1766, the year when, according to the Ottoman delegates Persian
encroachments^ began. The Turkish right to the province as thus constituted was
apparently derived by the Ottoman delegates from the specification in the treaty of
1823, by which according to their version, the Persian Government recognised the
ancient limits of the Ottoman Empire (laid down by the treaty of 1639, which latter
treaty was renewed later by those of 1736 and 1746), and undertook further to deliver
up to the Ottoman Empire all the territories and fortresses which during or after
t e war had passed into the hands of the Persians, and to abstain from all act of
iiggression on or incursion into the sanjaks of Kurdistan and the district of Kurdistan
properly so called.
In /j 16 g/yen to the above arguments by the Persian delegates at the sitting
of the 1 st August (Proces-verbal No. 15) no attempt was made by the latter to discuss
in question of the various sanjaks into which, according to the Ottoman delegates
Suieimanieh had formerly been divided. Such discussion, it was maintained by the
.Persian delegates, was unnecessary, firstly, because the province in question could not
r To™ a i havin £ llrmts other than til0se assigned to it by the Treaty of Erzeroum
o y and secondly, because, of all the districts enumerated by the Turkish
deiegates m Proces-yerbal No. 14, only Serdesht and Beitoush had been mentioned by
-the Ottoman commissioners as belonging to Suleimanieh when stating officially at the
eleventh conference (in the year 1844) of the Commission of Erzeroum the full extent
ot the claims of their Government. _ The argument, however, chiefly relied upon by the
Persian delegates in support of their views as regards the limits of Suleimanieh was
drawn from articles 2 and 3 of the treaty of 1848 above referred to, by the former of
w iich, the Persian delegates maintained, the points on the frontier subject to territorial
modification had been settled, while the latter (article 3 ) laid down that at all other
points the two parties abandoned their former claims, the meaning of which was that
P status P i0 ol 1848 would assume the character of legal ownership. Article 9 of the
said treaty could have no bearing on the territorial question, since it was applicable
n y w ere omissions existed and since the question of territorial claims was explicitly
and peremptordy settled by articles 2 and 3. It followed, further, from the provisions
0 i ns latter article that Serdesht and Beitoush, claimed, as above stated, by the
Ottoman Government in 1844, would remain to Persia.
T ^ eir arguments on this matter were brought to a conclusion by the Persian
1 £ ^ates with an invitation to their Turkish colleagues to accept the delimitation
o Suieimanieh as given m Proces-verbaux Nos. 2 and 13, and to adopt, as frontier
rom tie south-west limits of Beitoush to Mount Ararat, the status quo of 1848 which
could be re-established without any difficulty whatever, and the maintenance of the
principle °1 which had already received recognition by the cession by Persia to Turkey
4 -if P1C s 1 SU( U as A ant ^ -^aokhan as being in the possession of the latter country
at the conclusion of the Treaty of Erze roum.
The reply given by the Ottoman delegates (Proces-verbal No. 16) to the above
argumen s o eir Persian colleagues was of the briefest possible nature, and amounted,
m ac , mercy to the statement that they—the Ottoman delegates —could not admit
the conclusions arrived at by the Persian delegates, as these conclusions constituted