'Gazetteer of the Persian Gulf. Vol I. Historical. Part IA & IB. J G Lorimer. 1915' [‎1515] (1670/1782)

^ on St?,
\%
id °
boffin tie
^ en tie int,
led
%|fe
[a>
? l^rantinesaii^tji-,
^1% witl Hesji,
into Tnrtjv»
iT TO
fies in 1815 and is'!'
I of tie folic wt
t and toiacoo m*,:.
informed tie Biitislt
it Fao; audit I;
probaik a mitil ^
Ciief of'it
he foond tic
jsedtoie-
ch itwa5
1515
ments from Persia at the special instance of the Porte. The construc
tion of a Turkish fort at Fao being regarded as a menace to British
interests, a remonstrance on the subject was addressed to the Turkish
Government in August 1887 ; but it was not well received by the
Turkish Minister for Foreign Affairs. The British contentions, in view
of the history of the engagement annexed to the Treaty of Erzeroum,
were as below:
It follows from the above facts, that the Turkish and Persian Governments stand
mutually pledged to one another to abstain from fortifying on either side the banks
of the Shat-el-'Arab, and that Great Britain and Russia, who were the means of obtain
ing for the Porte this engagement from the Persian Government, have a direct interest
and right to watch over its faithful observance by the contracting parties on whose
behalf they intervened at the time.
It is possible that the Minister for Foreign Affairs may be unaware of these facts.
Or he may perhaps argue that the engagement being a reciprocal one, the lur is
Govem i,ent have the option of departing from it with no other consequence than a
of leaving the other party free to do the same. Her Majesty's Government cannot
admit in view of the history of the negotiations, t hat such a connection (. construction)
is valid in international law, or that the Porte can free itself from the engagement
which it took to the British and Russian mediators as well as to the Persian Govern
ment without previous arrangements with them.
And, settiDg the legal question aside. Her Majesty's Government, being interested
In the integrity both of Persia and the Ottoman Empire and having the tact
that British snbjects are largely interested both in the trade of Basrah an o ammeia ,
would greatly r-gret the con.truotion of opposing fortifications on either baA of the
river, which mnst constitute a menace to its peaceful navigation an nn 01 cei
circumstances become a source of danger to the maintenance of good relations betwe
the two ootmtries, or between either of them ami Great Britain.
Discussions continued until tue 31st July 1S88, when the Turkish
Oovernment delivered their final reply in the following terms
We have perused your note of reply stating that the eenstruction rf
at fto is contrary to.the decision arrived at when the treaty ™ ^ ^
ri.., that no fortification, should be made on the banks tbe f
declaring that any modification
mediating powers. It is needless o expa Turkey at that time, in her own
subject was not a reciprocal^ understanding, constrac ting fortifications on
interests reserved to her own mstituvon u.ie i D go l on g aa Turkey should not
those banks and brought about the engagement that ^on g ^ J ^ ^ ^
fortify the right bank ol the r'ver. Persia^ ou ^ ^leased from her engagement
left bank. Now that Turkey has had foi ^ ^ . hag n0 rigllt to object And
tnd is also t0 WMtl b ^ £0 * 2, ^oTovemmei.ts. there is no kind of engagement
taw agreement being between Governments aforesaid are not dependent
sis a vis the mediating powers, and t violation of any treaty
on their consent, and the construction of these works
between the two countries.,