Page 85 - Gulf Precis (V)_Neat

9

21-B.—The views of the India Offieoarc expressed in the following extract
of Sir A..Godlcy's letter dated 12tli Feb­
Secret I.. April 1897, No. 8.
ruary 1897:—
“Lord George Hamilton desires me to add that lie concurs in theso views as to Bahrein
and Katar, and considers that Turkish intervention oven on the pretext of Sanitary precaution,
should not bo permitted cither on the Katar coast or at Bahrein. But the Viceroy’s telegram
apparently excludes Hat if also from Turkish control, whereas it would seem that Katif is a
part of the 11asa province within t he dominions of the Ottoman Porte as specified in the
Foreign Office telegram to Sir W. W’hito, dated the 29th August 1SSU. As regards Koweit,
Sir Philip Currio’s letter No. 972, dated the 21th November lbDti, as well as the memorandum
by Mr. Atavridcs. datcl the 30th June 1 HOG, hardly support the Turkish claim to a protec­
torate over Koweit, and Lord George Hamilton is therefore to this extent uuable to acquiesce
iu the view put forward in the Viceroy’s telegram.”
21-0.—What actiou was takon upon this it is not clear. Tho fact was
that the Turkish Government established a Quarantine Station at Koweit.

IV.—;l)Haripasa Piracy case.(2) Warning to Sheikh of Koweit(3)
Status of Sheikh ot Koweit.,4) Question of Protectorate over Koweit
raised—1895-1896.
22. In 1S95-1S96 reports were received of several piracies on tho Sliatt-
al-Arab. Among these the most serious
External A, May 1896, Nos. 217—233.
was one committed against a ship, called
Earipasa, belonging to a subject of the Jamnagar State. If was on its way
to Basrah to bring dates and was attacked and robbed on 22nd August 1S95
by somo 30 pirates near Fao. The piratos killed four members of the crow and
wounded four of them, and also carried away about Its. 3,400 in cash.
23. The difficulty was on whom the blame should be fixed. It was
supposed that both Persian and Turkish
Secret, E. April 1897. No*. 30-73.
subjects combined in these piracies.
There was little doubt that the Sheikh of Koweit knew well who tho culprits
were. Almost all the land in the vicinity of Fao, was as the British Consul at
Basrah Captain (Whyte) reported, owned by tho Sheikh of Koweit and his
Muklitar had 5 Sons living at Gusba, a village on tho Persian bank opposite Fao,
where many of tho pirates lived. The British Consul also thought that tho
Sheikh of Mohammcrah was also equally informed. lie therefore proposed
Letter No. f.23, dated 20th October 189C. that both tho Governments, Persian and
No. 62 of Procuring* cited. Turkish, should be asked to call upon
these Sheikhs to produce the pirates and in tlio event of their failure to comply, to
recover from them in equal shares the amount of indemnity which Government
might decide to demand. Anothor proposal was mado by the Consul-General, Bagh­
dad (Mr. Moeller) that both tho Persian and Turkish Governments should be
called upon to appoint a joint Commission to investigate into the case of the piracy.
A third proposal was to mako the Sheikh of Koweit alone responsible, as the
culprits were mainly traced to his territory or lands. The difficulty, however, was
whether, the British Government could deal with him directly, sinco it was sup­
posed that tho Sheikh aknowledgcd the Porto as his Suzerain. On tho other
hand there was reason to believe that the
No. CO of Secret E, April 1897, No*. 35-73.
Sheikh was in reality an independent
potentate and only nominally subject to tho Sultan, and Sir Philip Currie
thought for this reason and for other reasons it would be impractical to call
upon tho Turkish Government to make the Sheikh of Koweit produce the
piratos.’
2d*. The Government of India in their despatch to tho Secretary of State,
No. 27, dated 2Uh February IS97, expressed therefore the following opinion :—
•* It appears to us that there might bo advantage in fixing upon the Tur­
kish Government the responsibility for
No. 66 of Secret E. April 1897, Not. 35-73.
the Sheikh of Kowoit’s actions. A state of
affairs in which ho can shelter himself under a nominal subjection to the Porle,
wliilo tho Forto enu disclaim at will any responsibility is in tho last degree. un­
satisfactory