ملف ١٩٢٨/٢٠٠ الجزء ٥ "بلاد فارس: العلاقات الأنجلو-فارسية، مفاوضات بشأن المعاهدة" [و‎‎٥‎٥‎٩] (١١٣٢/١١٢٢)

TMs Docgraenti i s the Property of H is Britannic Majesty’s Government.~
PERSIA.
August 19, 1929.
CONFIDENTIAL
Section 1.
4085/19/34]
No. 1.
Ac . n . ('live to Mr. A. Henderson.—(Received Auqust 19)
(No. 426.) y ’
? Gulhck A in 1Q9'Q
AS authorised in your telegram No. 226 of the 29th July! I arZgld to see the
Minister ot Court this morning, when I left with him an outline of the proposed
general treaty. I have the honour to enclose a copy.
u i ^ ^■^^ lness that I did not propose to-day to discuss the treaty in
detail, but I suggested that we should read through together the articles at present
drafted, when I would give such explanations as I could, and he could make such
comments as occurred to him.
3. As regards Article 1. I explained that as a concession to the views he had
expressed to me last winter, His Majesty’s Government had been prepared to include
a non-aggression clause. At the same time the clause had been amplified in a
reciprocal sense so as to cover the various sheikhdoms and rulers on the south side
of the Gulf, together with the Kingdom of Iraq. He made no comment except to ask
whether this included Bahrein. I said, yes, but we would come to the article on
Bahrein later.
4. Article 2. His Highness suggested the addition of a phrase at the end “ not
less favourable than that accorded to any other Power.” I said I imagined this
was unnecessary but that I would submit the point to you.
5. Article 3. After reading through this article, his Highness at once objected
to the second paragraph. I said the second paragraph merely consecrated in treaty
form the arrangements existing to-day. Taimourtache replied that to-day’s
arrangements were admittedly only temporary, and to include this clause in the
treaty would be very wounding to Persian (imonr-'pro'pre. I then cited the precedent
referred to in the third paragraph of Admiralty letter to Lord Monteagle of the
1st May, in which it is stated that British, French, Belgian and German vessels of
the North Sea Fishery Patrol being regularly employed in that area could call at any
port without previous notice. His Highness argued that this evidently was an
international arrangement in the mutual interest of four countries and he did not
consider this as a precedent for the Persian Gulf. I replied that I did not agree with
his contention, and it seemed to me impracticable and cumbersome that every time
one of the vessels stationed in the Persian Gulf wished to call at a Persian port a
formal request had to be made through this Legation. If this was so, I said, it would
be necessary to count at least a week on each occasion before the necessary authority
was obtained. I then cited two instances when this would be most inconvenient:
(a) in the case of a vessel wishing to oil at Abadan; (b) in case His Majesty s consul-
general at Bushire had suddenly, at short notice, to cross the Gulf to somewhere on
the iVrab side. His Highness replied that as regards oiling at Abadan, he was quite
prepared to meet us and to arrange that notification to the local Governor should oe
sufficient. The latter would be given authority to allow the vessel to oil at Abadan
without reference to Tehran. As regards the second case, he pointed out that I had
on occasion pressed for urgent permission for an aeroplane to cross Persian territor},
and he recalled one occasion on which this permission had been granted and settled
within two hours. He was quite prepared to guarantee to me that in urgent cases
permission could be as quickly obtained for the visit of warships. It was not, e wen
on to say, that the Persian Government wished to prevent British warships ca ing
at Persian ports, but it was simply a question of amour-pro'pre for the P ersl an
Government not to put into the treaty an arrangement such as that propose m e
second paragraph of article 3 whereby British warships could go m an ou o
Persian ports whenever they liked ana without previous notice. W i e no accep jn D
his Highness’s point of view I said we had better go on with the next article.
5 Article A (Henjam). His Highness was inclined to think that to put this
long article in its present form into the treaty was too cumbersome and that at an>
rate, the greater part of the article could be attached as an anne^ o e ^4 L ,
then read through the article, and he said that while there were certain things to
[884 1—1] B