'File 82/17 I (F 90) A.P.O.C. Port of Basra and Shatt al-`Arab Water-way' [‎69r] (150/224)

[e 1183/2/34] Enclosure 8 in No. 1.
£;■ ,, Admiralty to Foreign Office.
11 " (Confidential.)
OjjN Qi-p
it T A AT i 1 ! T T ^ Admiralty, March 6, 1929.
i ^ ♦ I AM commanded by my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to acquaint you
that they have had under consideration letter dated the 21st February. 1929, from
«. ,. ?J 0n ' a ;e ' i? tte L ^ tec! th , e 28th February from the Foreign Office, together
* wth the telegram No. 63 from the High Commissioner of Iraq to the Secretary
% of State for the Colonies contained m Colonial Office letter No. 68007 '29 in connexion
j«l with the Persian draft Bill regarding territorial waters. '
p ; • + v, 2 ' i ^ ^; u V7 t]l t ^ 1€ v ? ew t ^ e Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,
le-k m the letter of the 28th February above mentioned, that His Majesty's Government
% would have difficulty m refusing to consider a special agreement with the Persian
\ Government, granting the Persian Government some rights of administrative control
% lor specific purposes beyond the 3-mile limit, provided that Persia can show that
pe special local circumstances require such control.
3. The examination of the draft Territorial Waters Bill has not yet been
completed, but it is observed that the Bill is ambiguously drafted, and its intentions
jftjE as regards the supplementary zone are by no means clear. Article 6 lays down that
idpf regulations prescribed for territorial waters and the supplementary zone shall
IjJ be applicable to foreign vessels in territorial waters. This would seem to imply that
it ® 110116 01 these regulations should be applicable to foreign vessels in the supplementary
zone. This, however, is not consistent with the regulations in Part II (see, for
J example, articles 13 and 17), many of which apply to foreign war vessels in the
/ supplementary zone, and it is observed that Sir R. Olive has obviouslv read the Bill
u as applying generally to foreign vessels in the supplementary zone.
4. My Lords concur with the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in his
remarks as to the undesirability of Persia being given the right to search Arab
shipping outside the 3-mile limit.
11 '5- In connexion with the slavery question also, unless His Majesty's ships are
1 : to be allowed to retain the right to search in Persian waters, this supplementary
zone might result in a still further limitation of the right of search.
^ 6. The aspect of the proposal which my Lords consider most dangerous is the
question of the Shatt-el-Arab. The Rooka Channel is at present indispensable to
the navigation of the Shatt-el-Arab by heavy vessels, and as it is outside the ordinary
i r 3-mile limit, its control by Iraq is liable to be challenged by Persia, who may claim
- control over it as within their 8-mile supplementary zone/ Moreover, as stated in
P Admiralty letter of the 25th February (sent to Foreign Office, Colonial Office and
ei India Office The department of the British Government to which the Government of India reported between 1858 and 1947. The successor to the Court of Directors. ), there would appear to be no definite rule as regards drawing the
boundary between the territorial waters of two adjacent countries in cases like those
f of Iraq and Persia, so that the question of the control of the river estuary inside
pt the Rooka Channel is liable to give rise to dispute.
7. The navigation of the river channel is intricate, and only the rigid enforce-
eis ment of the local rules of navigation will prevent frequent accidents. It is therefore
essential to resist any measure by which the Persians may claim to exercise police
el supervision over the estuary, including the Rooka Channel.
1 8. As remarked above by the High Commissioner in his telegram of the 18th
G February, the difficulties in respect of the Rooka Channel form a strong argument
if for reaching an agreement with Persia regarding the control of the Shatt-el-Arab
ti and its approaches.
iff 9. A copy of this letter has been sent to the Colonial Office, India Office The department of the British Government to which the Government of India reported between 1858 and 1947. The successor to the Court of Directors. , Air
nil Ministry and Board of Trade.
I am, &c.
H
L'l
[e 962/58/34] Enclosure 9 in No. 1.
Foreign Office to Colonial Office.
Sir. Foreign Office, March 14, 1929.
I AM directed by Secretary Sir Austen Chamberlain to acknowledge the receipt
of your letter of the 21st February, forwarding for any observations which he might
have to offer the copy of a despatch from the High Commissioner for Iraq regarding
the situation as between Iraq and Persia at the mouth of the Shatt-el-Arab.