Page 176 - Gulf Precis (V)_Neat
P. 176

100
                        from lh«*British Government, is not disposed to incur the difficulties and einlanassments which
                        mint ensue from the declaration of a protectorate over cither of the territories of the thief*
                        of Koweit and Ncjd.1’
                           This view was concurred in by the Foreign Ofll.ro.
                           With reference to tho above lottor, the Government of India found it neces­
                        sary to address the following despatch to explain the point of misunderstanding
                        between the Government of India and Her Majesty’s Government as regards tho
                        attitude of tho former on the protectorate over Koweit proposed by the former
                        iu their telegram, dated the 2dth December 159S : —
                           “ Wo desire to refer to Your Lordship’s letter to the Foreign Office, dated 14th Juno
                        1901, on the subject of Kowvit, which Contains certain statements that appear to us to call
                        for explanation.
                           Iu this Utter Your Lordship challcngo* the accuracy of the statement contained in the
                        Viceroy’s felegiam No. 935-E.A, <lat**d Mb June, that tho sanction of the Foreign Office
                        in the declaration of an opf,n protectorate over Koweit, which was reported in vour telegram
                        of 21th December ls9S, was withdrawn in your telegram of 6th January 1899, and Your
                        Lordship adds that the then Vic«-r y, Lord Elgin (1) did not accept the conditions proposed
                        in the telegram of 21th December 1898, or reply to the enquiry contained in it. Further
                        on, in Your Lordship's letter, it is staled that the Indian Government cannot undertake to
                        supply the material force required to support the proposed protectorate, and to establish the
                        authoritative control over the Sheikh that it would involve.
                           "With reference to these remarks, we desire to point, out that, while it is true that Lord
                        Elgin did not reply to the enquiry contained in your telegram of 2tth December 1SUS, and
                        t<» that extent may be held not. t>> have signified bis acceptance of the conditions attached to
                        the approval of the protectorate, it. is not the case, as would se ;m to be implied, that His
                        Excellency lefusod to accept the conditions, or that the Government of India bad declared
                        themselves to be unable to supply the force needed for its assertion and maintenance. Asa
                        matt*r of fact, this question was never considered by the Government of India Your tele­
                        gram of 21th Doccmbcr 1898 was repeated to the Resident in the Persian Gulf on 29th De­
                        cember, and that officer replied on SUtli December. On 2nd January, Lord Elgin noted.—
                        “This is a matter of some importance and dcseives more consideration than lean now give
                        to it. The case might be seen iu the Military Department, and then be submitted to Lord
                        Curzon.” The present Viceroy assumed charge of his office on the Cth January 1899. Tho
                        opinion of tho Milittry Department was communiotted to the Foreign Department on 17th
                        January, but, before it cuiid be submittc l to His Excellency, Your Lordsuip’s telegrams of
                        5th and Cth January 1900 worn received, in which it was sta'cd that Sir N. O'Conor bad
                        urged that any formal declaration of a protectorate would be considered as little short of hos­
                        tile act by Turkey, and that Lord Salisbury concurred in bis opinion that, at present any
                        overt act towards establishing a protectorate should be avoided. We venture to think that
                        the communication contained in these telegrams may not inaccurately be described as a with­
                        drawal of the approval of a protectorate, which was contained in your telegram of the 24th
                        December ls9S. It is not neccssiry to discuss what would have been our reply lo the tele­
                        gram of the 2lth December if these latter telegrams had not been received, for, as wo have
                        said, we had not the opportunity of fully considering the matter. But wo should not like to
                        commit ourselves at all definitely to the presumption that the Government of India at that
                        date would have be^n unwilling or unable to face the responsibilities involved in the assertion of
                        a protectorate over Koweit, since, unless we are prepared to 6ce that place pass ultimately
                        under the control of some oiher European Power, it is difficult to say what other practical
                        solution can be suggested. ”


         1

















         ;
         i
   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178   179   180   181