Page 340 - Gulf Precis (V)_Neat

142
these claims, and considered themselves bound by their treaty engagements with
their several Chiefs to resist any attempt, whether direct or indirect, to give
them practical c(lcct.
536. In July 1880 Her Majasty’s Ambassador at Constantinople (Mr.
Goschcn) issued a note to the Governor-General at Baghdad drawing his atten­
tion to the increase of practical expeditions in the Persian Gulf issuing from
that side of the Arabian littoral, where the Turkish Government claimed to
have established jurisdiction, and asking his co-operation in a plan of opera­
tions for the suppression of the piracies north of Odcid. Mr. Goschen’s pro­
ceedings were approved, hut he was warned not to entangle himself in any
discussion with the Porto about the territorial question.
637. As no arrangement could be arrived at with either the Porto as the
Porte of Baghdad, Her Majesty’s Government ultimately decided that our
naval officers should not be hampered by the three mile limit in pursuing the
pirated craft in Turkish waters.
638. The practical outcome of the correspondence and discussions of the
two years was (see Mr. Moore’s memoran­
1881.
dum of 13SL.)
a # * «i It has been left doubtful how far along tho coast Turkish juris­
diction is to be recognized as exlending * * *•
«* * <‘ As to what at this date is the actual position of tho Turk on the A1 Hassa
and Guttur coasts, there is little defiuite information * * * ”,
“ * * Between us and the Turkish Government, the territorial question has been
shelved, not solved, and that our attitude towa'ds the petty chiefs and tribes ou
the Guttur Coast still remains to bo determined ” * * * 11
639. On the 28th August 1888, the London Poreign Office telegraphed to
1888. the British Ambassador at Constanti­
No. 130 of Eitl A, November 1899, Koi. 102-161. nople—
* * * Our position is clearly defined. Wo recognize Turkish jurisdic­
tion at far as Katif, and are anxious that it should be effectively exorcised within
those limits. Beyond that point we consider the Chiefs to bo independent-, and
having eugagemouts with them we object to attempt to extend Turkish autho­
rity over them."
640. In their letter dated the 2nd November 18S8, in connection with the
Turkish posts at Bidaa and Has Tao-
No. 345 of Extl. A., February 1889, Koi. 336-316.
urah, the India Office stated—
•»# * “ Her Majesty’s Government have declined to admit the claim of Turkey to
sovereignty over the El Katr Coast, while the Sultan uncompromisingly asserts
his rights over that coast. The Sheikh of El Bidaa on tho eastern side of the
El Katr peninsula an independent Chief and not party to the maritime truce,
has allowed the Turks to maintain a small military post there sinco 1872, and
Her Majesty's Government have never protested against this assertion of Turkish
supremacy <»n this portion of the El Katr Coast. Lord Cross thinks that it
may be sufficient for the present to acquaint Sir W. White, if tho Marquis of
Salisbury sees no objection thereto, that Her Majesty’s Government do not
consider that the Porte it in effective occupation of the Arabian coast, beyond
Katif, and that they adhere to the declaration made in 18SS, that the claims
of the Porte to rights of sovereignty over the A1 Katar Coast is not admitted
by Her Majesty’s Government, but as there is no reason to anticipate that any
practical result would be attained by provoking a discussion with tho Turkish
Government as to the extent of its jurisdiction ou that coast, it is undesirable to
raise the question at the present time. * * ”
ft* Ras Tanurah is the south point of a long strip of land * # whicli forms the
north side of Katif Bay. No objection could, therefore, apparently be offered
to the formation of a coal depdt by the Turks at Ras Tanurah *
641. In 1888 when we heard of a threatened invasion of Oman by tho
Turks and Ibn Basbid, we warned both against tl:o atop (see para. 607-A ante.)
642. The Government of India, in their despatch No. 74, Secret, of tho
24th May 1889, stated—
No. 230 of Eitl. A., Aaguit 1889, No«. 233-305.
«* « * tho Government of India cannot recommend any further attempt to coma
to an understanding with Turkey nor the recognition of Turkish rights over
any part of the coast on which such rights had not hithorto been recognised
a » "