Page 361 - Gulf Precis(VIII)_Neat

47
157. Again in the House of Commons on aand January 1902, Lord
Cranborne said:—
* * * * * * *
"Our policy is the integrity of Persia. That unselfishness is not due to anv elaborate
moral motive, because it is our interest that Persia should remain in its present territorial
condition. But, when 1 state that I ought to add that there arc limits to that policy,
that policy cannot be pursued independently of the action of other powers. We are
anxious for the integrity of Persia, but we arc anxious far more for the balance of power
(hear, hoar) ; and it would be impossible for us, whatever the cause, to abandon what we
look upon as our rightful position in Persia. Especially is that true in regard to the Persian
Gulf, as 1 had the honour to state to the House a few days ago. It is true not only of the
Persian Gulf, but of the southern provinces of Persia, and those provinces which border on
our Indian Empire. Our rights there, and our position of ascendancy, we cannot abandon.
In the Gulf itself, as I ventured to state on the previous occasion, our ascendancy is not
merely a question of theory, but a question of fact. Our position of ascendancy is assured
by the existence of our maritime supremacy ; and I may say in answer to the remark
of the hon. baronet that it is a far solider guarantee than any paper rights to which he
pointed."
a a * # * * * *
158. At an interview with the Shah in London on August 21st, 1902, Lord
Lansdowne, in reply to a question from His Imperial Majesty, said:—
" that the recognition of the independence of Persia had always been a cardinal point
Secret B., March 1903, No*. 361.338. Proceed* in our policy. We adhered as strongly as ever
ing No. 386. to that policy, which we had repeatedly affirmed.
Our special concern was, of course, with the southern part of Persia and the Persian Gulf,
and we should, if occasion arose, put forth the whole of our strength in order to prevent
encroachments by other powers in these regions."
159. On 5th May 1903 the Marquess of Lansdowne in the House of Lords
made the following speech, dealing with British interests in the Persian Gulf
(vide the Times of 6th May 1003) :—
'* I now pass to the closelv-connected subject of the Persian Gulf. I feel sure that the
noble lord’s interest in the Baghdad railway scheme was because he felt it did closely affect
our interest in the Persian Gulf. I do not yield to the noble lord in the interest which I take
in the Persian Gulf, or in the feeling that this country stands with regard to the navigation
of the Persian Gulf in a position different from that of any other power. The noble lord
told your lordships with absolute truth it was owing to British enterprise, to the expen­
diture of British lives and money, that the Persian Gulf is at this moment open to the naviga­
tion of the world. It was our ships that cleared those waters of pirates; it was we who put
down the slave trade; it was we who buoyed and beaconed those intricate waters. Well, at
this moment, out ol a total trade in the Gulf ports of £3,600,000—the figures are those for
1901 ; we have none later—£2,300 000 represents the commerce of this country ; so that it
is clear that, up to the present at all events, we have succeeded in preserving a liberal
share of that commerce. But there is no doubt that in the Gulf, as in other parts of
Persia, we are feeling very keenly the competition of other powers. That, I am afraid, is
our fate not only in Persian waters ; nor can we expect, because we have been in the
development of commerce throughout the world the pioneers of that form of civilization,
that we shall always be able to maintain the position of superiority which we at first
enjoyed. The noble lord asked me for a statement of our policy with regard to the
Persian Gulf. I think I can give him one in a few simple words, ^t seems to me that our
policy should be directed, in the first place, to protect and promote British trade in those
waters. In the next place, I do not think that he suggests, or that we should suggest, that
those efforts should be directed towards the exclusion of the legitimate trade of other
powers. (Hear, hear.) In the third place—I sny it without hesitation—we should regard
the establishment of a naval base or of a fortified port in the Persian Gulf by any other
power as a very grave menace to British interests, and we should certainly resist it with
all the means at our disposal. (Cheers.) I say that in no minatory spirit, because, so far
as I am aware, no proposals are on foot for the establishment of a foreign naval base in the
Persian Gulf. I at least have heard of none; and I cannot help thinking that the noble lord
waxed almost unnecessarily warm at the idea of such a foreign intrusion, with which, so
far as I am aware," we are not at present threatened. Well, the noble lord then touched
upon a series of points connected with our commercial interests in the Gulf.
"I will take the navigation of the Karun river. That was opened in 1888. I was in
India at the time, and I well remember the satisfaction with which t>ir Drummond Wolff’s
achievement on that occasion in procuring the opening of the river to navigation was
regarded both in India and at home. The trade of the Karun, although it has not increased
perhaps as much as might have been anticipated, has increased considerably; and
the lion’s share of it is ours, I see that in 1897 the trade was only £26,000, whereas in
1900 it had risen to over £1.000,000. The noble lord.(Lamington) spoke of the difficulties
encountered by our traders owing to the customs arrangements on the Karun. I do not
know whether I quite followed what he said on the subject, but, l may tell your lordships,
that the position is this. We were originally led by the Persian Government to expect