"ملف رقم ١٣٥٦ لسنة ١٩١٢ الجزء ١ "الحدود التركية-الفارسية:- مفاوضات في القسطنطينية." [ظ‎‎٥‎٥] (٨٨٥/١٢٠)

boundary on the S hatt-el-T h'/aiji. A considerable strip of territory would thus be
relinquished to Turkey, especially if we consider Persia’s original claim—the course of
the marsh channel from west of Hawizeh until it reaches the Shatt-et-Arab. Pers^,
can afford to do this 3> for, although the area involved is an extensive one, with irrigabic
potentialities which it is hard to estimate, it is nevertheless probable that the nomad
occupation and cultivation by Shi’eh Arab tribes under Persia would remain unaffected
and that lurkish subjects and Turkish influence would continue to be as non-existent
and unknown east of the natural boundary as they are under existing conditions
8 . As regards (c) I can only say that nothing in Mr. Parker’s memorandum
5 th May ^ ^ a ^ ^ V1GW ex P ressed m m y telegram dated Mohammerah, the
o; l tooiild refer to the following passage, based on the legal opinion of
bn L. Dcividson, Mr. Hurst, and Mr. Malkin, and quoted from the Foreign Ofice
letter^ of the 31st May, 1912 {No. 22934) to the India Office ^
Gr ey advised that under normal conditions there is no doubt a
presumption that each riparian owner owns on his side of the river usque ad medium
uia aquae, bin, that, in the present case, that presumption has by implication
urMoubtedhj been swept away by the terms of the Treaty of Erzeroum (1847) the
effect of which was to give Turkey the whole waterway.”
I would also refer to the view of Admiral Slade, A. Hirtzel and Mr Burst
(see joint letter of the 15th May, 1 912, to Sir E. Grey (No. 20863)). A. P.
9. In conclusion, I would urge that having regard to the fact that our commercial
stake and mterests in Southern Persia, present and potential, now mainly centre in
abistan, and are bound up with the maintenance of the Sheikh of Mohammerah’s
position and the strengthening of our special relations with him, we have evei-nhino to
lose by a course of action (the failure to safeguard the status quo which'has been
regaided and treated by the present generation as the established order of thino-s)
which will tend greatly to discredit the value of our engagements and snimort 5 j
create in the minds of the Arab public in the Gulf and the nftive rulers in treaty ’with
us a feeling of apprehension and uncertainty which we can bv no means especially at
this juncture, afford to disregard. - ’ P ' at
Our attitude will, in fact, be regarded as a crucial test of our sincerity and abilitv
to make good our engagements, and I would add the personal opinion that the increased
confidence and frank reliance m us, which the Sheikh of Koweit has shown within the
ast two years, has tieen due less to anything that we have done for him than to the
practical demonstration in the case of Mohammerah of the substantial and moral value
of pm steadfast friendship and support: I should view with very great concern any
action calculated to weaken those sentiments. ^
/ here is a consensus of opinion as the importance of obtaining the most
favourable settlement possible for the sheikh, due regard being had the same
tmie to our general relations with Turkey, to legal and treaty considerations and to
the expediency of not arousing misgivings as to the justice of our attitude in Turkey
u here the Sheikhs of Mohammerahand Koweit, our proteges, have largely invested
in real estate, and might suffer from resentment entertained against
government. Whether our attitude can be such as to insist-if the face Zsible
Turktsh oppos iti on—.uponthe continued exercise of jurisdiction by the
Mohammerah over lus tribesmen resident in admittedly Turkish territory Go- 2
me /.am incident of 1910 was,as I understand it, inspired the
committed against the sheikh's relatives rather than by a determination to resist
sheikh> whh regard to ' i,s
direct ‘ ^ ^ ^
I have, &c.
P. Z. COX, Lieutenant-Colonel, British Resident in
the Persian and His Majesty's Consul-
General for Ears, &c.