Page 181 - Gulf Precis (V)_Neat

.105
APPENDIX I.
(See Section XXVI paragraphs 2H2-S43,)

Communications in Europe about Turkish occupation ofTTm-Kasr,
Bubiyan Island anaSubbiyali, February—iflarch 1902.

On 27th February 1902 tho Viceroy repeated to tlio Secretary of State
Colonel Kcraball’s telegram dated 25th
Secret, Jf., July 1002, Noa. 307-503 No. 308.
February, reporting tho establishment of
Turkish military posts at TJm-Kasr and on the Bubiyan Island [sec telegram
No. (2) on page 53 antc\.
The Viceroy’s telegram was repeated to Sir N. O’Conor, and on 4th March
No 310 the Foreign Office wired as follows to
him:—
No. 421. "Viceroy’s telegram of 27th February repeated
to you in my telegram No. 33.
I should be glad to have your observations. Do vou believe that we can show Bubiyan
Ura-Ksr to be within territory of Sheikh of Koweit, and cmld we reasonably contend that
activity of Turks at these places is a disturbance of the status quo in which Kowoifc is con­
cerned ?"
Sir N. O’Conor replied by telegram dated 4th March :—
*‘I have no arguments in support of Sheikh's claim to Bubiyan Island and I never supposed
tliat his authority extended over it. As to
No. 423.
Um-Kasr, Consul of Basrah thinks that it may he
important if recent survey proves the channel between Bubiyan and mainland to be navi­
gable, and he understands that the Sheikh's claim that in favourable seasons it has been
cultivated by people from Koweit, and that Turks did not exercise authority there until recent
events, hut those are poor arguments in favour of Sheikh's claim. It is, moreover, nearer
Zohair than Koweit. I think that it will be difficult to maintain, with the knowledge wo
]X)ssess, that action of Ottoman authorities in cither place amouuts to a disturbance of status
quo at Koweit."
I am certainly in favour of maintaining Sheikh’s authority over Koweit, including Bay
and Kasima, but to block all access to Gulf practically up toFao would, 1 fear, lead to trouble.
On 3rd March 1902 Colonel Kcmball proposed that Turkey should bo
told to leave Bubiyan forthwith [telegram
No. 316.
No. (3) page 54 ante].
This telegram was repeated to the Secretary of State. Sir N. O’Conor,
on being consulted by the Foreign Office,
No. 319.
replied on lltli March 1904 :—
" Your telegram No. 40 and Resident at Bushire’s proposal.
It seems to me tbat such fishery rights are proverbially unsatisfactory for assertion of
j.q 435 territorial jurisdiction, and that there is no
possible object in raising a conllict with Turks
about Bubiyan island while leaving them in occupation of Um-Kasr.
British Consul at Basrah says that island generally uninhabited and that the fishermen
from Koweit slay thcro part of year, but he 6ays nothing about their paying duties to tho
Sheikh.
I have not heard yet that Turks have occupied Subbiyali and I do not know that it is
worth holding or if Sheikh has a more substantial claim to it.
I am pretty sure that Ottoman Government will refuse to evacuate Bubiyan for any
reasons wc arc able to prefer. It would be unpleasant to meet with a rebuff and equally so to
be obliged to drive them out. Besides wc should be drifting to an eventual occupation and
protectorate and probably encouraging fchr. Russians to seize some place in the Gulf as a coal­
ing station.
I see no objection, however, to tolling Minister of Foreign Affairs that ice cannot admit
without further enquiry that occupation of Um-Kasr and liubiyau is not a disturbance of the
status quo aj regards Koweit, and that 1 am instructed by Your J.ordUiip to inform him that-
we do not regard Sheikh's rights as in anyway prejudiced by action of the Turkish authorities
Sir N. O’Conor was authorized by Marquess of Lansdowuc to make to the
Porte the representation suggested in the
No. 436.
last paragraph.