File 200/1928 Pt 5 'Persia: Anglo-Persian Relations, Treaty Negotiations' [‎48r] (100/1132)

Article 6.
numerous a
sl y high i}
’am No. f,
edin
isent
; pourvoi!
the restrict
the follow
P’s stores|
substitntioi
)bjectionatlt
terred toak
. His Majcst
ition about:
conventii
I do not yet appear to have received the views of the Government of India on
the suggestion put forward by the Political Resident A senior ranking political representative (equivalent to a Consul General) from the diplomatic corps of the Government of India or one of its subordinate provincial governments, in charge of a Political Residency. at Bushire in his telegram
No. 236 of the 11th March last, to the effect that the Bushire wireless station should
not be handed over until the Bahrein station, which has a heavy seasonal traffic and
^an only communicate intermittently and at increased rates with Basra, has been
reconstructed in such a manner as to render it capable of direct communication with
Karachi. If, as is possible, ratification of the treaty takes place before the Bahrein
station is so reconstructed, I presume that a clause will have to be inserted in the
treaty article, delaying the date of cession of the Bushire station accordingly.
It will be recalled that the Resident has also raised the question of com
munication between Bushire and the “Patrick Stewart ” when the Bushire station
is no longer available and Henjam available only for His Majesty’s forces. The
removal of the residency An office of the East India Company and, later, of the British Raj, established in the provinces and regions considered part of, or under the influence of, British India. , if agreed to, would not in any case be practicable for some
rime after ratification of the treaty, and I should consequently be grateful for an
expression of your views as to the bearing of this question on article 6 of the treaty.
Article 7.
The “element de contradiction 5 ’ presumably refers to the undertaking given
by the King on behalf of a ruler whom he has recognised as an independent
ie necessitj: Sovereign; at least, I can see no other possibility, illogical as this criticism is in
[■malities to view of the terms of article 1. But as it can only be advantageous to His Majesty’s
3vidently o: Government to be thus relieved of the responsibility inherent in this undertaking,
I presume that no objection need be raised to the change proposed,
relation to , The altered second paragraph of this article will be seen to deprive Bahreinis
and end® resident in Persia of reciprocal treatment in the matter of the protection of their
icted control persons, rights and property; I consider it objectionable for that reason.
sHisMajes; It is satisfactory that the Minister for Foreign Affairs should at last have
aintainedi realised the impossibility of mentioning the question of Persian representatives in
the treaty. On the other hand, I have, as stated in my telegram No. 176 of the
The stipi 28th July, invariably emphasised in my conversations with his Highness that any
arly ridici Persian representatives would be entirely unofficial and could only be selected in
the nighth agreement with the Political Agent A mid-ranking political representative (equivalent to a Consul) from the diplomatic corps of the Government of India or one of its subordinate provincial governments, in charge of a Political Agency. . I am consequently uncertain as to how much
me on duti importance should be attached to the passage beginning: “ Mais il doit rester
m those vs entendu .... autorites locales,” nor whether it would not be advisable to call in
)reak. Pos question this assertion of a right which His Majesty’s Government would at no time
is of such si be prepared to acknowledge without far-reaching qualifications. To ignore this
before hoist assertion might later be characterised as a tacit acceptance without Avhich the rest
would never have been conceded.
^ it is notij The sentence beginning “ Meme si mon Gouvernement ne soutenait pas,” a
eceivedprt remarkable example of muddled thinking, may, perhaps, be taken to mean that
icer orfrt Tamb, Abu Musa and Sirri are all essential to Persia if public opinion is to be
e receipt oil appeased for the loss of Bahrein, but that, since the Persian Government claim these
)se in p islands as their own, in any case, the eventual British recognition of their claim can
freer to the si have no market value,
of the ‘ J
ritten ass® r
, for the res
ting meto j
ling flyip
i the qriesti
X was au®
icing the $
• consider s ;
stion.
5 when ■
-e 5) ^
idu. Sett
e notes sk« J
A Hide 8.
I must confess myself quite unable to grasp the meaning of his Highness’s
observations on this article. It is clear enough, I fear, both from what precedes these
observations and from our recent conversations, that the Persian Government are
determined not to concede the two Tambs; and how, in these circumstances, the
recognition by His Majesty’s Government of Persia’s claim to these islands and to
Abu Musa could possibly form the prelude to a settlement on the basis of the status
quo I am unable to conceive. As for Sirri, Feroughi seems to suggest that the
British draft article of August last mentioned the Persian claim to Sirri as a fact
about which there had never been any dispute; whereas in my discussions with
Teymourtache on the subject I have always been careful to emphasise that the
Persian claim has never been admitted either by us or by the Jowazimi Sheikhs, and
that the mention of this island had been proposed solely in order to provide the
[201 t—1]
c