'Persian Gulf. Turkish claims on the Arabian coast' [‎4r] (7/10)

Last year, the Government of India proposed to
make a Protectorate Treaty with Ahmad bin Thani, who is
described as the de facto rulery Sheikh Jasim being
now superannuated. In reply the Government of India were
instructed not to allow the Resident to do more tha^imake
preliminary enquiries or to commit the Indian Government to
any obligations pending the result of further discussione
(No.37, dated 5 September 1902.)
Then came from Constantinople a report that the
Turkish Government proposed sending garrisons to certain
places on the Arabian coast, including Odeid and Zooara.
The Government of India propose that we should prevent the
occupation of Zobara and Odeid, on the same grounds as in
189 5 ^viz, on the ground that it would be a menace to
Bahrein. They also renew their suggestion about an
agreement with Ahmad bin Tiiani, but do not press it. The
position at Zobara was held so recently as 1896 to oe
sufficiently important to Bahrein to justify fls in forcibly
turning out the settlement fostered there by the Tuiics. As
to Odeid, its status was detemined by the Govsi'nment oi
India in their despatch No.^ 7 of IS^g, n 0deid belongs to
w the Chief of Aboothabee, with whom the British Government
"has maintained direct treaty relations for many years, and
♦ftitatlthe pretensions of Turkey to claim the settlement rs
" a dependency of a Turkish district are vague and without
^foundation. It may be true that Sheikh Batay of Odeid has
"occasionally hoisted the Turkish Hag, that he has claimed
"Tuiicish protection, and that he has latterly paid a small
"tribute to El Bidaa. But the existence of a separate and
"independent Chiefship at Odeid has never been recognised,
"and the act of Sheikh Batay in establishing a settlement
"there was an infraction of the prescriptive territorial
"rights of Aboothabee. The declaration of the Odaid Sheikh
"and of his colomy, that they put themselves unaer Turkish
p ro t ection