Annotated Copy of Persia and the Persian Question by George Curzon, with Inserted Papers [‎770r] (1556/1814)

14
EGYPT.
NOTES OF THE MONTH.
The most notable event of the month is, without doubt,
Sir Edward Grey’s pronouncement about an Arbitra
tion Treaty of Alliance with America. We should be
glad to look at this idea with the enthusiasm displayed
by those who listened to his words, an enthusiasm
repeated by the press and in the pulpit as an earnest
of universal peace and the general brotherhood of man.
But how can we believe it to be even a first step to
such an ideal?
To us it seems far more probable that such an
alliance, if it was seriously proposed, between the two
great sections of the English speaking world, however
desirable in itself the thing might seem here, would
announced to be held at the London University, July 26
to 29 next, under the presidency The name given to each of the three divisions of the territory of the East India Company, and later the British Raj, on the Indian subcontinent. of Lord Weardale, an
excellent man for the position, as his sympathies with
the weaker races is of life-long standing, and we may
be sure that their interests will have fair play under his
chairmanship. There are good names, too, on the Exe
cutive Committee—notably those of Mr. Swinny and
Mr. Ratcliffe, of the Sociological Society—who have
proved themselves to be good friends to Nationalism.
We are glad that the Congress has dropped the word
Subject. Races ” from its title, which would have
made it difficult to include the Egyptian question in its
programme, as Egypt is hardly yet a subject nation,
though suffering wrong at foreign hands. Papers are
to be read, the object of which, it is announced, will be
" ■ j : • - -. -
-I a
m
April, 1911 .]
EGYPT.
15
-deficiency, at least to the extent of showing that, agree
ment or no agreement, there certainly exists no “treaty
•obligation with the Sheykh of Koweit ” such as Sir
Edward Grey, who was probably speaking at second
hand without having personally examined the case, at
first referred to. The status quo in the Gulf, briefly
stated, is this :—
A hundred years ago the technical sovereignty of
the Gulf was vested on its two shores in the Ottoman
Sultan and the Persian Shah respectively^ This had
been the case as regards Northern Arabia since the
■ seventeenth century. But both Empires had become so
feeble that the practical power of the Gulf had been
usurped by the Wahhabi monarchy which held the
Arabian sea coast in subjection and terrorised the
Persian littoral. It was a state of things not very
different from that of the Egyptian Soudan and the
Red Sea coast in the time of the Mahdi’s rebellion, only
that, steam navigation being yet unknown, foreign
trade in those waters was at the mercy of the Wahhabi
sea-raiders, as were the desert frontiers of Syria and
Mesopotamia to their raiders by land. As far north
as Palmyra the villages outside the line of cultivation,
without troops to defend them and abandoned adminis
tratively, had to make their terms as they best could
with the marauding emirs and, though still nominally
Ottoman, reverted to the sole rule of their local Sheykhs.
Among these was Koweit, or as it was then generally
called Grain, an insignificant village or small town at
the head of the Gulf forming part of the Pashalik of
Bagdad. It may be found included in the lists of
towns of the Pashalik of that date, including a French
list in my possession dated 1809.
A little later, the Wahhabi power having been
broken by Mohammed Ali, Pasha An Ottoman title used after the names of certain provincial governors, high-ranking officials and military commanders. of Egypt, acting in
the Sultan’s name, the Gulf became, if possible, still
more disturbed, each sea port carrying on its own
piratical raids against its neighbours and to such an
extent that in 1820 the British Government in conjunc
tion with the East India Company resolved to police its
waters, and partly by force, partly by persuasion, the
Sheykhs of the south-eastern half of the Gulf were
brought into what was called the “Truce of the Gulf.”
England did not assume sovereignty or formal protec
tion over any part of the coast, but exercised coercive
authority for the keeping of the peace by sea. I
cannot find that the Sheykh of Koweit was ever
included among the Trucial Chiefs, or that Koweit was
ever subject to Wahhabi rule. Its inhabitants were a
valiant people and managed to maintain themselves
behind their walls and they were also strong at sea.
Their position had remained under the old feudal
system of the Ottoman Empire one of semi-indepen
dence, just as had the towns occupied by the Montefik
Arabs on the right bank of the Euphrates. They were
neither taxed nor conscripted but acted as guardians of
the river mouth for the Government. Midhat Pasha An Ottoman title used after the names of certain provincial governors, high-ranking officials and military commanders.
gives an interesting account of them and their earlier
status in his memoirs. Their Sheykhs of the Ibn Sebah
family claimed descent from the Muteyr tribe of Nejd
but had migrated north many generations before and
had settled first, according to Pelly, who visited Koweit
in 1864, at Om-Kamr, at the head of the Zobeir creek
in the network of the Euphrates river system, and had
built the fort of Koweit (“Koweit” means a little fort) a
few miles further south on the Arabian shore. Some
times pirates, according to Pelly, and always keen
traders they had been latterly active in putting down
piracy. Midhat’s account of them and of how he
“regularised” their position in 1871, and reincorpor
ated them formally, with their Sheykh’s and their own
consent, as part of the Ottoman Empire, their adminis
trative independence being left untouched, is thus
described :
come with this tribe of Cf Moutayer’ 5 from Nedjed five hun
dred years beforej and had maintained ever since with prac
tical independence a republican form of government,
choosing by election their own judges (cadis) and the pro
fessors of their religious schools (medresses). Owing to the
restricted extent of their territory, the inhabitants, like those
of Venice, took chiefly to maritime pursuits, and upwards of
two hundred small vessels of various tonnage traversed in
every direction the Indian Ocean, as far as the coasts of
Zanzibar, and practically monopolised the pearl fisheries of
the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. . Although they had adopted a special flag
of their own, they occasionally hoisted a Dutch or English
flag, to secure certain privileges accorded to these flags by
the capitulations. It seemed highly desirable to Midhat
Pasha An Ottoman title used after the names of certain provincial governors, high-ranking officials and military commanders. to put an end to this equivocal status of the inhabi
tants of Koweit, and to regularise their position. He accord
ingly entered into negotiations with them, and offered the
full enjoyment of their autonomy and privileges under the
government of their own Sheikh Sabah, provided they recog
nised themselves as forming part and parcel of the Otto
man Empire, and adopted the Ottoman flag as their national
ensign. These conditions were accepted by the people of
Koweit, and their territory became a sandjak of the vilayet
of Bagdad. A formal treaty to that effect was drawn up and
signed and confirmed by berats (writs of investiture) from
Constantinople, and new schools and mosques arose in
Koweit. ”
I do not know that there is any reason for doubting
the accuracy of this account. It is certainly confirmed
by that very careful writer The lowest of the four classes into which East India Company civil servants were divided. A Writer’s duties originally consisted mostly of copying documents and book-keeping. on Arabian affairs, Mr.
Hogarth, in his recent book, “ The Penetration of
Arabia,” who says of the transaction, “ When the
Sheykh of Koweit declared for Midhat in 1871 he re
ceived a pledge that his town should enjoy adminis
trative autonomy, but as an Ottoman kaza, in which
he accepted for himself and his heirs the position of
hereditary kaimmakam (lieutenant-governor). Turkey
therefore is not without such rights to Koweit as in the
comity of nations are usually allowed to be paramount
and exclusive.”
What, then, is our English Foreign Office case?
Are its claims of such validity that Sir Edward Grey
should be able to come forward and declare that Eng
land is under “ treaty obligations ” towards the Sheykh
of Koweit, obligations which she is bound to maintain?
Looked at from a professional point of view, it would
seem absurd that the kaimmakam, or lieutenant-
governor of an Ottoman kaza, or district, should have
contracted any “ treaty ” with a foreign Power im
plying “ protective rights ” over his district or towards
himself recognisable by any interpretation of inter
national law. Whatever may have been his predeces
sor’s once independent status, it is quite clear that,
forty years after its formal surrender to the
Sultan, Mubarak Ibn Sabah cannot pretend to any
right of sovereignty now. Nor is it possible that,
bereft of sovereignty and holding his place under an
acknowledged sovereign overlord, he can any longer
possess a treaty-making power of the smallest legal
validity. Treaties are between Sovereigns and Sove
reign States alone, and cannot be contracted by
lieutenant-governors on their own responsibility. Sir
Edward Grey seems to have discovered this legal flaw
since he made his first speech, and so now calls it an
“ agreement,” while he also abandons the “ protec
tive” right, at first assumed, in his answer to Mr. Dillon.
As well might the Emperor of Germany have claimed to
have “ treaty obligations ” with the Sultan of Johore,
with Rajah Brooke of Borneo, or under a Home Rule
regime with an hereditary Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.
Secret “ agreements ” between a foreign Sovereign and
the vassals of other Sovereigns are of course not un
known to diplomatic history, but they have usually been ’
called not “ treaties ” but “ intrigues.”
Of such kind, it is quite clear, has been the unpub
lished agreement made with the Sheykh of Koweit.
We know enough about it to be sure of its. date—
January 23, 1899 —and that it was entered into by
Colonel Meade, acting on instructions from Lord
Curzon — Lord Curzon himself has acknowledged
that; and we know that the document promised
the Sheykh English protection against his Sovereign
Lord the Sultan, and that his consent to it
was gained by a “ consideration ”—that is to say,
“Sixty miles from Bussora, and on the coast of Nedjed, is
situated the little town of Koweit, of six thousand houses, the
inhabitants of which are all Mussulmans. Midhat Pasha’s
predecessor, Namik Pasha An Ottoman title used after the names of certain provincial governors, high-ranking officials and military commanders. , had endeavoured to bring this
population within the influence of his jurisdiction, but they
successfully resisted all attempts at imposing taxation upon
them, and had maintained their quasi-independence under
their own chiefs, the descendants of one Sabah, who had