Coll 7/25 'Persia and Persian Gulf: proposed Anglo-Persian Convention' [‎57r] (113/117)

THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF HIS BRITANNIC MAJESTY’S GOVERNMENT
PERSIA.
CONFIDENTIAL.
[E 7114/114/34]
^“ November 21, 1933.
O '1
If > 4
O Section 8 .
No. 1.
Mr. Mallet to Sir John Simon.—(Received November 21.)
(No. 505.)
gi r? Tehran. October 30, 1933.
IN paragraph 5 of his note of the 21st October about the search of a Koweiti
dhow A term adopted by British officials to refer to local sailing vessels in the western Indian Ocean. , the Fath-ul-Khair. near Bushire, on the 21st May, the Minister for Foreign
Affairs stated :—
“ Without entering into details or mentioning special instances, I
imagine that the question of the inspection of suspected dhows by the vessels
of the Imperial Government should not cause any anxiety to you because
these measures would effectively enhance the safety of the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. , to
which His Majesty’s Government attach the utmost importance."
2. This contention, or rather the principle which underlies it, is completely
at variance with the attitude which the Persian Government have themselves
adopted towards the International Arms Traffic Convention of 1925 and the Slave
Traffic Convention of 1882. In the various discussions that have ranged round
these instruments and their projected successors, the attitude of Persia has been,
roughly speaking, that she would not consent to the search of Persian vessels on
the high seas by foreign warships even in return for the right to have the vessels
of other countries searched by her own warships. As an alternative, the Persian
Government appear ready to enter into engagements respecting both the slave
and the arms traffic in which they bind themselves in effect not to search the
vessels of other countries for slaves or arms upon the high seas, on the under
standing that Persian warships alone shall search Persian vessels. Though such
an arrangement would have its disadvantages, it woukT possess one compensating
7 advantage of importance in that Persian warships would be precluded from
searching Arab vessels, a proceeding to which His Majesty’s Government could
only consent with the very greatest reluctance.
3. In the present case, the principle which the Persian Government are
trying to enunciate is obscured, first, by their refusal to recognise the Arab
principalities of the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. , and, secondly, by their claim to a limit of
7 miles for territorial waters. But the obsession about smuggling is at present
so strong among Persian officers and officials of all kinds that I think it highly
probable that the Persian Government will continue to search Arab vessels for
contraband upon the high seas even if they come to recognise the various
principalities and even where the question of the extent of territorial waters is
immaterial—unless, of course, some means are devised to stop them. It may, at
any rate, be useful to review the position on the assumption that the Persian
Government will maintain this principle in the widest sense and defend it on the
ground that necessity demands it.
4. It is not my purpose to consider here what I may call general political
measures, which might have to be taken if the Persian Government were defiant.
Apart from these there arc certain particular measures of a kind in which the
punishment may be said upon the whole to fit the crime. The most effective and
most legitimate would be for the Persian navy to be shadowed by British
warships; but this would be a very costly and inconvenient proceeding.
Moreover, in view of the existence of many small customs-launches besides the
larger vessels, it would doubtless be very difficult. Other possibilities would be
for British warships to search occasional Persian vessels under the convention
of 1882 on the so-called Arms Traffic “ Firman A Persian word meaning a royal order or decree issued by a sovereign, used notably in the Ottoman Empire (sometimes written ‘phirmaund’). ” of 1897 (though the Persian
Government could cancel this as easily as the Sultan of Muscat could cancel his
Arms Proclamation of 1898), or even on the general principle which the Persian
Government have themselves just enunciated. Such action would have the merit
of bringing to a head any dispute which might then be raging, but would have to
[971 x—8]