ملف ١٩٢٨/٢٠٠ الجزء ٥ "بلاد فارس: العلاقات الأنجلو-فارسية، مفاوضات بشأن المعاهدة" [ظ‎‎٤‎٨] (١١٣٢/١٠١)

10
ti
Persian Government with a tangible acquisition which would be of use to them in
facing public opinion. You will recall that, on Tevmourtache insisting that %
Persians had long had a customs post there, and that the island could not therefore,
figure amono' those whose sovereignty was contested, His Majesty s Government
naturally consented to omit all mention of Sirri in subsequent drafts.
A possible way of saving the Persian faco would be to omit the last sentence cy
this article : “ Est reconnu notamment . . . . et d^Abu Moussa. The status
is that Tamb and Abu Musa are not Persian, and Sirri is, and there is no sign of
Persian sovereignty in either of the two former islands. By omitting the last
sentence no mention need be made specifically of these two little islands.
Article 9.
I have still, in spite of numerous enquiries, to receive a detailed reply to the
memorandum on this subject, which formed the enclosure to my despatch No. 255 of
the 13 th June.
Article 10.
No reasons are advanced for rejecting the brief and non-committal introductory
article which I communicated to the Minister for Foreign Affairs a month ago, nor
had he given me any indication of a desire to revert to Teymourtache’s original
counter-draft, which would render it necessary, among other objectionable features,
for His Majesty's Government to subscribe to the fiction that the convention of 1882
had become a dead letter.
As to the duration of ten years now T proposed, I await your instructions.
Article 12 (Claims).
I have long felt, and already informed you, that the misguided attempt of the
Imperial Bank of Persia to deal wdth their claims directly with the Persian Govern-
ment unbeknown to His Majesty’s Legation in January 1929, and the categorical
i Qi^ Sa j n • en resu ^ e( ^ prejudicing all war claims, i.e., claims for
, jJ a S a ^ ns ^ the Persian Government. Moreover, in the recent settlement come
o e ween the bank and the Persian Government in May of this year, no mention
was made of claims, and I give it as. my considered opinion that the Persian
oyer nine n would now refuse to entertain any bank claims during that period. As
Mnm fU lm for / a ® 11 stolen by the Persian gendarmerie from their branch offices was
e sc ! u ? es c there is, I fear that there is not the smallest chance of any
this fb» ha rnf as S t 00d ° r w , 0rse J than this one being entertained. If I am right in
to a’comparatively smalTfigure 1 ! 064 ’ aPart fr ° m ^ PerSian Railwa y Syndicate claim,
Article 13 (Debt).
, ,^he request for the remission of the
shadowed m my telegram No. 162 of the
tnan leymourtache’s earlier request for a
your instructions. ^
remaining £510,000 of war debt was fore-
14th July, and is at least more reasonable
remission of the whole 2 millions. I await
satisfactory, though it is cleorlv j 076 ™ 111611 ^ tC) adhere to the optional clause is
concession to British wishes aud T t0 ^ ec i s i° n i n the light of a
insertion of an article regardino- a K ?J a ^’. nee( tless to say, never suggested that the
of the optional clause S th 0 “f Tt ^ WOuId be in contradiction to the spirit
subscription to that clause. 1 W ° U d certai nly be rendered superfluous by
M ith regard to the questinn n-P
ments to be abrogated, the excentirm r enumeration of previous treaties and agr^'
would seem to remove the last^nhlp 0 !' ^ . te ^ e g ra ph conventions, as here suggested,
general abrogation, always nrovidid t^ 0 ^ m PF actice > to the Persian desire for a
ways provided that a satisfactory formula can be devised for