Page 314 - Gulf Precis (V)_Neat

11G

441. Tho Resident's statements regarding the Turkish occupation of Kntif
as distinguished from other parts of tho Arabian Coast of tho Gulf wore quito
oorrcct. Tho despatches cited in chapter eleventh were sufficient to show that
Katif was, and is recognised as being, in tho elective possession of tho Turks,
and that other parts of tho Arabian Coast wore not so, and were not recognised
ns being so.
445. It was further clear from correspondence summarised abovo (see
Section III Chapter Eighth) that tho Turkish possession of the Katif coast had
been frequently recognised by complaints against the Turkish authorities on
account of outrages committed in that neighbourhood. In 1882 Her Majesty's
Ambassador at Constantinople, on the representation of the Resident in Turkish
Arabia, addressed a special and general protest to tho Porte on the subject.
In these circumstances the Government of India asked the Secrotary of
State’s definite instructions whether it was still desired by Her Majesty's Gov­
ernment that representations to tho Porto should not be made in respect of
piracies committed off tho Katif coast (Despatch No. 41-, dated 11th April
1887).
446. The following instructions were then issued to Sir W. White by
Her Majesty’s Government in Juno
Xxlcrml A., Aognit 16S7, No*. 100-105.
1887 :—
Her Majesty’s Government have on several occasions recognised the de facto authority of
the Turkish Government over the Katif Coast, although they have had reason on more than one
occasion to complain that it is not exercised efficiently for the repression or punishment of such
acts, as those reported in the enclosed papers. Her Majesty’s Government have, on the other
hand, refused to admit that the Sultan has any rights of sovereignty over the Kalar Coast and
have c aimed right of dealing directly with the Chiefs on that coast. A correspondence took place
on this Bubjeot betweem Lord Cranville and Musurus Pasha, in 1883, of which Your Excellency
will find copies in tho archives of Her Majestiy's Embassy.
In January 1887 the Earl of Dufferio reported that he had addressed a representation to
the Porte on the subject of an act of piracy committed ou a Bharein heat by the Beni Hajir
Arabs residing in the neighbourhood of Katif. A promise was given to make renquiry iuto the
matter and to 60ad the necessary instructions to prevent any recurrence of such act. The
report, however, which was received from tho Wali of Baghdad was of an unsatisfactory
character and entirely at variance with tho account received from the British authorities. It
even denied that any tribe of the name givon existed in tho neighbourhood of Katif. Lord
Dufferin, as reported in his despatch No. 51/3 of 20th October 1883, thereupon presented a
memorandum to the Porte, reiterating tho details of the outrage, and the Minister tor Foreign
Affairs promised a renewed investigation. No satisfactory result, however, was to be an­
ticipated, and in view of the controversy that was taking place as to the rights of tho Porte
over the neighbouring coast of Katar, it was not thought desirable to pursuo the matter.
Instructions to this effect were addressed to Lord Dufferin in Earl Granville's despatch No.
407 of 2&th November 1883.
The Resident in the Persian Gulf now calls attention to tho fact that Katif is completely
in Turkish possession, that its occupation has been repeatedly recognised, and that such recog­
nition does not necessarily affect other parts of the coast. It appears further from the
reports received from the Kesidency Agent at Bahrein that a Turkish Government steamer
was anchored at Katif at the time when the recent acts of piracy wore committed hut made no
effort to prevent or punish them.
Under these circumstances I have to instruct Your Excellency, unless you should think
that for 6orae reason such a course would be inexpedient, to bring flic facts to tho notice of the
Turkish Government and to represent to them the injury that is caused to the peaceful trade
of the Gulf by the state of lawlessness, which is permitted to exist at Katif and in its neigh­
bourhood. It is scarcely to be expected that your remonstrances will have much practical
result, but it may be desirable that the Turkish Government should understand clearly that Her
Majesty’s Government consider them responsible for the recurrence of these outrages.