مجموعة ١٥/١٧(٢) "العلاقات مع بلاد فارس: الحدود الفارسية-العراقية؛ مطالبة بلاد فارس بشط العرب" [و‎‎٤] (١٠١٠/١٨)

THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF HIS BRITANNIC MAJESTY’S GOVERNMENT
PERSIA. November 28, 1935.
CONFIDENTIAL. Section 1.
[E 6949/32/34]
Iraqi-Persian Boundary Question.
Narrative of Events, No. 5. Geneva, September 1935.— {Communicated by
Mr. Edmonds; Received in Foreign Office, November 28.)
AS recorded in my last narrative I returned from Tehran to Bagdad with
Nuri Pasha on the 28th August by air. I left again by air on the 3rd September,
reached London on the 7th September and Geneva on the 11th September.
Mr. Fachiri travelled to Geneva on the same day. Nuri Pasha with Nusrat
Beg A1 Farsi, Director-General of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, had arrived
on the 9th September.
2. While the instructions for the Iraqi delegation to Geneva were under
consideration in Bagdad, I prepared for the Council of Ministers a short
memorandum on the case for Persian participation in a Conservancy Board
in the Shatt-el-Arab. A copy is attached as Appendix A, for convenience of
reference.
3. At Geneva direct negotiations were conducted with the Persians on the
following four subjects, which can best be discussed separately:—
{a) Formula for the adjournment of the Iraqi request.
{b) Tripartite Treaty of Non-Aggression, to include Turkey.
{c) Treaty for the Pacific Settlement of Disputes.
{d) Treaty of Friendship, to cover the boundary settlement.
Of these, of course, the Treaty of Friendship was the most important—indeed
the matter which took the delegation to Geneva; it will, however, be discussed last
since less progress was made with it than with the others.
(A)— The Adjournment.
4. On our arrival at Geneva we found that the Persian delegation was
sedulously spreading the impression that complete agreement had been reached
on the boundary question, and that the Iraqi request was being withdrawn.
M. Kazemi even told his own legal adviser, M. de Lapradelle, that a number of
treaties and agreements, including a navigation and conservancy convention,
had already been negotiated, and that it only remained for the legal advisers
of the two delegations to meet and put the texts in proper legal form.
5. On the 19th September Mr. Fachiri met M. de Lapradelle with a view
to composing a letter to the rapporteur asking for an adjournment. Mr. Fachiri
had prepared a draft (Appendix B( x )). M. de Lapradelle stated that the Persian
delegation would refuse absolutely to include the word c ‘ adjournment.’' Indeed
for some days the situation was in some way reminiscent of that at the January
session, when the rapporteur was unable to present a resolution at all because the
only sentence in his many drafts on which the parties could agree was : “ Pays a
tribute to the spirit of moderation and friendship shown by the two parties.”
M. Kazemi went as far as to allege that Nuri Pasha had promised the Shah to
withdraw the request, but collapsed under cross-examination.
6. Contact was established with the Italian delegation on the 19th
September, and a copy of Mr. Fachiri’s draft was sent to Baron Aloisi on the
20th September.
7. On the 24th September M. Kazemi produced a counter-draft
(Appendix B (ii)), which was objectionable in that it gave a misleading picture
of the actual state of the negotiations, and might cause some surprise to the
members of the Council if the request is again put on the agenda.
( l ) Not printed.
[565 ee—1] B