"ملف II (F 94) 82/34 امتياز شركة أ.ب.و.ك" [و‎‎١‎٥‎٩] (٣٦٢/٢٧٤)

/ d
/J
3-
5. ^Te would suggest, therefore, that the Company
should place the limits of their concession, wherever they
wish to do so, up to a distance of twelve miles from the
Persian coast, making it clear that the areas included beyond
the coast are areas of sea "bed. This would prevent the
„ ■ „ I, mnr-"-"""-
possibility of the Persian Government, at some future date,
claiming the right - which, owing to- the diversity of vieY/s
about territorial waters, it would be difficult to dispute ~
to grant to another concern portions of the sea bed inside
the twelve mile limit in which the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company
might be interested. From the Persian point of view the
entire area within the limits drawn by the Company would then
be Persian territory. From the point of view of His Majesty 1 s
Government, however, the area as delimited would consist of
Persian territory only up to the three mile limit, and as
regards the parts of the sea bed outside that limit which the
Company would have included in their concession area, the
Company would not really have a right to them - as being under
the High Seas - until they had taken steps to appropriate them.
As we are presumably not in the least anxious that these areas
should be appropriated by anybody else, both the Persians and
ourselves would be perfectly happy.
6. You will also be aware that in July 1936 our
Legation at Caracas were instructed to initiate discussions
with the Venezuelan Government with a view to the Governments
of Trinidad and Venezuela taking simultaneous and parallel
Action to divide up as national territory between them the sea
bed of the Gulf of Paria or such parts of it as might be of use
for oil boring.
7. As regards question (2) namely the best way of
drawing the boundary of the Company 1 s area at the mouth of the
Shatt—el—Arab (referred to in paragraph 9 of the enclosed
record), it has since occurred to me that the Company should
draw/