Page 49 - Historical Summaries (Persian Gulf) 1907-1953

4 3

refused (in 1882) on the ground of the nature
of his relation^ with the Turks.
In 1901'the Government of India expressed
forcibly their view that a Treaty should he nogo.-
tiated with Sheikh Ahmed, in anticipation of the
death of Sheikh Jasim, who had then reached
an advanced age. An opportunity of making
such a Treaty had arisen through the disturbance
of the .status quo. hy the Turkish Government,
who had appointed officials to Wakra and othcif
places on the coast. The Government of India at
first promised that a Treaty should beeutered into
with Sheikh Ahmed on the lines of the existing
Treaties with Bahrein and the Trucial Chiefs, hy
which he would he debarred from parting witli
territory to others than the British Government.
Although in deference to British remonstrances
the Turkish Government had at length withdrawn
their interloping officials, the Government of
India remained of opinion that the position of
Great Britain should he consolidated by the
immediate conclusion with Sheikh Ahmed of a
Treaty similar to the former one (of 1808), if the
stricter form of Treaty with Bahrein and the
Trucial Chiefs were held to he inadmissible.
The principal reasons adduced in favour of
this course were—
1. The El Katr Coast, 1\ mg as it does between
Bahrein and the Pirate Coast, constitutes a break
in tlio continuity of British maritime influence.
2. The absence of a Treaty does not facilitate,
and may considerably increase, the work of llis
Majesty’s ships in suppressing piracy and main­
taining the peace of the Gulf. In this connection
it is observed that one objection to the extension
of Turkish authority in those regions is the
inability of the Turks to establish a strong
Administration, which is eminently desirabl? in
a district which, owing to its proximity to Bahrein
—the centre of the pearl fisheries—affords excep­
tional inducements to pirates and marauders.
These considerations did not, however, over-
come the disinclinations of llis Majesty’s
Sir S. O'Coimr, Ambassador at Constantinople, who was keenly
No. A16, alive to tlio difficulties which such a course
Juno 28, 1904.
might provoke with tlio Ottoman Government,
llis Excellency laid stress upon the multiplicity
of pending questions with Turkey, such as the
energetic action being taken to sceuro tlio
removal of tlio Turkish post from Buhiyan
Island, and lie was distinctly of opinion that,