'British relations with Turkey in the Persian Gulf. Memorandum on Lieutenant-Colonel Cox's telegram reports in Government of India's telegram of 1 December 1910.' [‎3v] (6/10)

r
6
and conjectured that this was a Turkish expedient for avoiding formal with
drawal. The Consul at Basra, however, reported on 27th October, that the
Vnli denied receiving such orders, and still maintained that the island
belongs to Turkey.
El Bidaa is on the east coast of the Katr peninsula, and, as has already-
been mentioned, the Turks have maintained a garrison there since 1872. Their
nominal suzerainty has been tolerated, though no communication has been
made to the Porte to this effect, but attempts to extend their control have
been resisted. The garrison recently consisted of 00 men and 4 guns.
Prom all these facts may be gathered the degree of opposition to be
expected if His Majesty's Government announce at Constantinople their
intention no longer to observe the status quo.
(h) Wakra, Odeid, and Zobara are all on the coast of El Katr, a
promontory south of the recognised Turkish sphere. In 1902 it was
announced that all three were to be converted into administrative districts.
The British Government had already forcibly dispersed a Turkish settlement
at Zobara in 1895 as being dangerous to the safety of Bahrein ; and Odeid
had been held for at least 30 years to be the property of the Chief of Abu
Dhabi, with whom we have treaty relations. Accordingly in March 1903
Sir N. O Conor warned the Turkish Government against making any admini
strative changes affecting the status quo in El Katr, and reminded them of
previous representations made by His Majesty's Government in 1883,
ISDo, and 1895). In reply he was informed that the question had been
discussed at a Council of Ministers, and that there was no intention of sending
mudirs to these places. Sir N. O Conor had been unwilling to raise the whole
question of Turkish sovereignty unless His Majesty's Government were quite
clear as to the policy to be pursued if the Turks—as he thought they probably
would—merely reaffirmed their claims, and it was hoped that the incident
was closed. But in the meantime a Turkish official had started for Wakra,
and succeeded in establishing himself there, and His Majesty's Government
had to pi ess for bis withdrawal. I he 1 urks dismissed him, but appointed a
local sheikh (Abdur Rahman bin Ibani) niudir in his place, and it was not
till November 1904 that His Majesty's Government succeeded in getting the
post altogether abolished. In August last the Consul at Basra reported that
n mudir had again been appointed to Odeid, and Sir G. Lowther (Despatch
So. 603 of 22nd August 1910) thought that this, along with their action at
Zakhnuniya, pointed to "a determination to assert and extend Ottoman
sovereignty in the neighbourhood of El Katr." He was instructed to hand
m a vritten protest, " pointing out that El Odeid is in the territory of one of
" the Trucial Chiefs who are under the protection of Hi? Majesty's Govern-
"ment," and requesting that the appointment might be "immediately
rescinded " (Sir E. Grey's telegram of 20th September). The Eoreign Office
at the same time consulted the Admiralty as to whether it would be possible
to effect a landing at El Odeid for the purpose of expelling the mudir, if His
Majesty's Government should decide to resort to forciblrne easures. The
Admiralty in reply recommended that the necessary action should be taken
by Indian tioops, the part of the ^Navy being limited to assisting in the
landing operations, and they pointed out that the employment of the Royal
Indian Marine Steamer Hardinge in connection with the blockade should
facilitate any action which might be necessary. The Turkish Government,
however replied that they knew nothing of any such appointment, and had
telegraphed to the \ ali of Basra not to make it, and to cancel it if it had
been made. Local enquiry left little doubt that the appointments had been
made both to Zobara and Odeid, although the new officials had not taken up
theii duties , and on 21st October Sir G. Eowther was instructed to make a
f uj tliei piotcst, icpCciting that liJ Ivatr is outsid© lurkisli jurisdiction."
(c) AA ith regard to the limitation of Turkish authority to Katif and Uiair
Sir G. Lowther, in his despatch of 22nd August, wrote as follows : —
" As regards Zakhnuniyeh, El Katr, and Bahrein which in a way form
one group the active forward policy of the Young Turk Vali of Bussorah
and the Mutessarif of El Hasa (Xejd) have already brought us into sharp