Page 170 - Gulf Precis (V)_Neat

91
APPENDIX 0.
(See paragraph 01.)

Note on Kotocit by W. Zee- Warner, dated the 23rd June 1898.
1. Kowoit or Grane appears to be within tho limits of Turkish influence if
not of Turkish sovereignty. Volume 2,
No. 621 of Scorct E., November 1898, Noi. 616-523.
page 462, Curzon's Persia, says that north
of TTjnir on Katif tho Ottoman dominion is established as far as Fao without
dispute. Despatch No. 13, dated 5th January 1880, to Sir II. Layard, qualified
our recognition of Turkish authority “where firmly established on the coast.’*
But tho telegram of 29th August 1888, to Sir W. White, went rather further—
11 We recognise Turkish jurisdiction on coast as far as Katif, and are anxious
that it should bo olToctually exercised within those limits.”- Apparently no
communication was made to t he Porte in these terms (see Sir W. White, No.
347, dated Cth September 1888.” The question may, therefore, arise whether
tho Porte has “firmly established” its dominion over Kowoit. Our latest expres­
sion of opinion is as follows:—
?. February 25lh> 1897.—Viceroy agreed with us while Katif (far south of
Koweit) was Turkish, Koweit was “doubtful,” On July 17th, 1897, No. 107,
Poroign Office telegraphed to Currie—“ We have never acknowledged Koweit
to bo under Turkish protection, but it is doubtful if we could dony Turkish
influence.” We communicated this view to India, July 23rd, 1897.
3. Tho arguments in favour of Turkish claims over Koweit are—
(») There are Turkish garrisons far south of it, evon in recent years at
Bidaa south of Katif.
(») The last Sheikh of Koweit, Mohamed, held t*he Turkish title of
Kaimakam and used the Turkish flag.
(iii) When he was assassinated by Mubarak, his brother, Mubarak
applied for Turkish recognition, and the people of Zobarah
appealed to tho Porte to removo the usurper.
(it?) When Sheikh Jasim of Katar with Sheikh Yusuf Ibrahim pre­
pared to attack Koweit, wre sat still.
(0) We have even received applications from Mubarak for protection
and done nothing.
4. The arguments against the theory of Turkish sovereignty are—
(1) There seems no doubt that Turkish sovereignty has not been effec­
tively maintained.
(it) Apart from the revolution and subsequent operations against Koweit
there have been piracies in that neighbourhood, which the Porte
has not restrained. So much so that on May 4th, 1897, we for­
mally held the Sheikh responsible, and on December 4th, 1897,
we telegraphed that there was nothing in our engagements with
Turkey to hamper naval officers in bringing home to Sheikh
Mubarak bis responsibility for piracies.
6. The advantages of acquiring control over Koweit are (i) a very fair
harbour, (ii) a potential railway terminus, (Hi) a trado route, (io) control
over piracies and slave trade, (a) exclusion of Russian or other foreign influ­
ence.
6. But Turkey would protest against a wedge being driven in between the
Shat-ol-Arab and ilusa, and our title is not very clear, while our interests on the
Persian side are more vital and demand our first attention.