Page 313 - Gulf Precis (V)_Neat

115

CHAPTER EIGHTH.
(V) Piracies in Katif and Bahrein waters in 1886.
440. In October 188G, the Officiating Resident, Bushiro, (Colonel Miles)
roported that the Chief of Bahrein had
External A., January 1687, Not 61 63 (No. 61).
complained to him of piracies committed
on his subjects by the Bcni-lfajir Bedouins of Katar. Colonel Miles sont the
complaiut on to the Resident iu Turkish Arabia for "such action as he might
deem proper.” It was then observed in the Foreign Office that the Resident
in the Gulf evidently regarded tho country (i.e., the Katar coast) of the olfen-
dors as within Turkish limits, while Her Majesty’s Government had concluded
•at the end of 1883 that it was not desirable to raise the question of Turkish
sovereignty in this neighbourhood. The attention of tho Resident in the Gulf
and Turkish Arabia was therefore drawn to the views of Uer Majesty’s Govern­
ment on the subject. Colonel Boss re­
External A, LI ay 1837, No«. 103-125 (No. 107).
plied by letter No. 179, dated 31st Decem­
ber 1880, sending a copy of a letter he had circulated to “ the various petty Chiefs i
of Katar and Jasim-bin-Mahomed Thani of Bidaa.” This merely called upon
them to co-operate in stopping depredations " as the sea is under the protection
of tho British Government.” It might be noted here that in September 1883
tthe Turkish Ambassador was informed that Her Majesty’s Government were
not prepared " to waive the right which they had exercised at intervals during
a long period of years of dealing directly with the Arab Chiefs of the Kalar
coast, wheu necessary, in order to preserve the peace of the seas, or to obtain
redress for outragos on British subjects or persons entitled to British protec­
tion”. This decision and the general responsibility accepted by the British
Government in regard to the security of the waters of the cover Colonel Ross’
circular; and besides Bahrein subjects along the coast might base a special
claim to British protection on articles 2 and 3 of the Bahrein convention, dated
the 31st May 1861.
441. Colonel Ross’ letter proceeded to discuss the applicability to the
Katif coast of the conclusion formed by Her Majesty’s Government in 1883
about Turkish sovereignty . On this coast, ho said, piracies or robberies were
mostly impossible to deni with " direct ” (».<?., with the local or tribal Chiefs)
because " Katif is wholly and completely in Turkish possession.” Ho added
that "we liavo over and over again recognised” the Turkish occupation of
Katif, and that " such recognition does not necessarily apply to other parts of
the Arabian coast.” Moreover, he thought that the view of 1883 had special
reference to the circumstances of the particular case, in which partial repara­
tion had been obtained and would not bo held in regard to outrages committed
with impunity undor tho shadow of tho Turkish flag. The Resident therefore
hoped that tho mattor might bo referred again to Her Majesty’s Government.
442. Colonel Ross also reported in his letter No. 172, dated 23rd December
1886, " that certain sailors belonging to
External A., May 1868, No*. 103*106 (No. 103).
Bahrein boats had been plundered in the
port of Katif which was undor Turkish occupation.” Colomel. Ross asked
whether he should or should not protest" against the lawlessness prevailing about
Katif.” Ho did not think that such a protest would have any practical result;
but as, " this outrago oocurred actually in tho waters of Katif where the de
facto, jurisdiction of Turkey had repeatedly been recognised,” he suggested that
" perhaps it might be well to go through tho form of protesting.” With
refrenoe to this suggestion the question was whether Her Majesty’s Government
had not objectod to raising tho question of Turkish sovereignty over the (ad­
jacent) Katar ooast, and whether tho same considerations applied to the Katif
coast.
413. In this (the Katif) part of the caso the questions for oonsidcration were—
first, and whether the Rosident in the Gulf should or should not formally protest
"against tho lawlessness prevailing about Katif,” and secondly, whether a
reference should or should not he mado to tho Secretary of State about the
applicability to the Katif coast of tho view taken in 1883 regarding lurkish
sovereignty.
• SoO pnr». 410, anlt,
f £ co Katur JPrctit.