File 1247/1912 Pt 1 'Turkey:- Communication to Turkish Govt of agreement between Gt. Britain and Koweit, Bahrein & Trucial Chiefs. Decorations for Sheiks of Koweit, Mohammerah & Bahrein in connection with Anglo-Turkish Convention.' [‎170r] (259/336)

Secret Department.
foreign secret telegrams
From Viceroy, 30th August 1911.
A hi l<Uu^
t w -7
Co^ h
ifk
3b' T-
(o35?i^ ^
f ^ ■wvr^
1 C^r.****
f ^ 1 '1
L^vii • ^ *Jt»
|^!w ' iUiU^
^ Cd**. - \tWcL.H]
itoiaft
T
Foreign Secret. Your telegram of 17th August. We have consulted
Cox who has personally interviewed Sheikh of Koweit. Latter, in absence of
more definite knowledge of present negotiations, is opposed to disclosure of
details regarding agreement of f 1907, i.e., foreshore lease, firstly because
places are referred to by name in regard to which he has rejected overtures
from other quarters, secondly because it contains provisions which were
framed as a safeguard against possible contingencies which may never arise,
thirdly because publication of details would in any case cause inconvenient
gossip amongst his own subjects and would also greatly increase hostility of
Turks to him in the event of Anglo-Turkish negotiations proving abortive.
I think it would be very undesirable to furnish Porte with any part of text of
agreement. They are already aware of its existence, vide Ixiwther’s despatch
to Foreign Office, No. 396, dated 28th May 1909, and it would perhaps
suffice to inform Porte spontaneously that we have a lease of land at Koweit,
but see no necessity to discuss details. Sheikh welcomes publication of
agreement of 1899, always provided that we do not intend to diverge from it.
On the same understanding I think agreement might be communicated to
Porte, but I deprecate furnishing any part of Meade’s letter of 23rd January
1899. Disclosure of 2nd paragraph is obviously undesirable, while
paragraph 1 (? only) provides for “good offices,’’ whereas in December 1901
and October 1902 (Vide Secretary of State’s^telegrams to Government of
India, dated 4th December 1901 and 14th October 1902) Sheikh was informed
that we would not tolerate attack by Turkish troops or ships on Koweit, and
that we would protect Koweit and district against attack. I suggest that it
would suffice to append a note to copy of 1899 agreement that we had
subsequently informed Sheikh that as long as he and his heirs and successors
acted up to their obligations under the agreement we charged ourselves to
support them and to protect Koweit against attack by land or sea.
You will presumably furnish Skeikh’s agreement to prohibit import or
export of arms, vide our Secret Despatch Ntf 86, dated 5th July 1900, and
his undertaking not to allow establishment of Post Office by.any other
Government than British, vide your telegram of 19th February 1904 and
enclosure to Secret Despatch No. 152 (External), dated 27th flctober 1910. *
As regards Bahrein and trucial coast A name used by Britain from the nineteenth century to 1971 to refer to the present-day United Arab Emirates. , we have no treaties other than those
in Aitchison, which is a published work, and this being so, all or any might
be communicated to Porte. Exclusion of 32nd and 46th might be misunder
stood. Except for this, I see no objection to their exclusion.
from Secretary of State to \ iceroy, Ff/reign Department,,
1 1th 4 uqna t 1911.
Foreign Secret. Bagdad Railway. Turkish Government have asked to
see our agreements with Koweit, Bahrein, and Tmcial Chiefs. As regards
Koweit Sheikh should apparently be consulted, but in view of what is"said
in memorandum of 29th July, it seems difficult to refuse altogether or to
give only extracts,_though Foreign Office think it doubtful if we should
divulge part of 19t)< Agreement providing for annua) payment on account of
lease of land. \V hat are your views ? Meade s letter of 23rd January 1899
should presumably be included. Of Bahrein and Trucial treaties 1 proi^e
to omit Aitchison 32 and 46. Please telegraph as quickly as possible
ri