File 160/1903 'Persian Gulf: El Katr; appointment of Turkish Mudirs; question of Protectorate Treaty with El Katr' [8r] (20/860)
The record is made up of 1 volume (425 folios). It was created in 26 Apr 1902-16 Dec 1910. It was written in English. The original is part of the British Library: India Office The department of the British Government to which the Government of India reported between 1858 and 1947. The successor to the Court of Directors. Records and Private Papers Documents collected in a private capacity. .
Transcription
This transcription is created automatically. It may contain errors.
It is not quite clear what Colonel Cox means by making the agreement
effective. It is ineffective only in the sense that the circumstances have
never arisen in which it would take effect.
Presumably he means a making explicit of what is implicit in it, viz.,
a denial of Turkish sovereignty and an assertion of a British protectorate!
This would have to be considered with reference to its effect on Germany
as well as on Turkey. As regards the later agreement, there is the further
difficulty that the Sheikh’s claim to the island of Warba is not indisputable,
and as recently as March last Government of India,
India Office
The department of the British Government to which the Government of India reported between 1858 and 1947. The successor to the Court of Directors.
, and Foreign
Office were all agreed that it was inadvisable to take any steps to raise the
question (S. 3130/10).
As regards the Turkish flag, it should be explained that the Sheikh of
^Koweit has flown it certainly since 1871, and possibly since 1856. In 1901,
when it was suggested by the Government of India that he should discontinue
the use of it, Lord Lansdowne rejected the proposal, and was “ not prepared to
support any action which could be interpreted as asserting the entire indepen-
“ deuce of the Sheikh of Koweit ” (Foreign Office letter, 24th August 1901,
S. 2251/01). The proposal was pressed later in the year, with the suggestion
that the Sheikh should fly the plain red Arab flag instead, but the Foreign
Office adhered to their objection (Foreign Office letter 24th September 1901,
S. 2366/01). In 1901 the (government of India suggested that the Sheikh
might retain the Turkish flag for use at Koweit and use a distinctive flag (he. a
Turkish flag with the word “ Koweit ” written across it in Arabic) elsewhere
(Secret letter No. 2247 of 8th December 1904), and this was agreed
to by the Foreign Office (letter of 18th February 1905, S. 2653). The
Sheikh concurred at first (S. 873/06), but later in the same year
demurred, on the ground that it “ was sure to get him into trouble ”
with the Turks, unless he was guaranteed by us against the consequences
(S. 2010/06). The Government of India thought that this “might involve us
in responsibilities of a somewhat extended character” (Secret Letter No. 193
of 27th December 1906, S. 2205). The Foreign Office were consulted
(27th January 1907), and the Ambassador at Constantinople was not opposed
to according this guarantee, thinking it “ very unlikely ” that the Turkish
Government would interfere with the Sheikh’s action (Sir N. O’Oonor’s
Despatch No. 105 of 18th February 1907); but the Foreign Office have never
replied to our letter, and the question has remained in a state of suspended
animation ever since.
It will have been observed, from the passage referred to above in the
Defence Committee’s proceedings, that the basis of our policy at Koweit has
purported to be adherence to the status quo. This has been a convenient
formula, but it is two-edged. The Turkish Government understand it in
their own sense (and what that sense is is shown by the fact that they have
made the Sheikh a Kaim-makam, and that they are applying the utmost
pressure to induce him to register himself as a Turkish subject). We under
stand it in our’s. One of the difficulties is to define our own meaning.
Thus, the Foreign Office were parties to the agreement of 1899. Yet in
September 1901 they declared that “ there does not appear to have been any
“ period since [1871] when His Majesty’s Government have not been ready
“ to admit at least the suzerainty, if not the actual sovereignty, of the Sultan.”
(Foreign Office letter of 24th September 1901). For practical purposes
the definition given by Sir T. Sanderson to Count Metternich a few
days earlier seems sufficient, viz., that the status (quo is “ the Sultan’s
authority as it exists in those parts.” Turkish authority “as it exists”
is limited to the Turkish title conferred on the Sheikh (it may be noted
that within the last few weeks the Sheikh has refused the offer of an
allowance to accompany the title), the use by the Sheikh of the Turkish flag,
and a Turkish guard sent to the island of Bubiyan, in violation of our
definition of the status quo, in 1902. It would appear, therefore, that while
there is nothing in the agreements that could not be made public without
violating the status quo, we could not deny Turkish suzerainty if the Foreign
Office view of 1901 is sound; nor could we assert a protectorate in view of
Lord Lansdowne’s pledge to the Turkish Government in 1901 so long as the
Turks themselves maintain the status quo (as we understand it), and do not
send troops to Koweit. A further question is whether the despatch of the
Turkish guard to Bubiyan Island does not absolve us from this pledge.
About this item
- Content
This volume contains memoranda, copies of correspondence and telegrams, and minutes of letters between British officials regarding:
- Turkish claims over El Katr (Qatar), and the creation of Turkish administrative posts on the Qatari coast, with 'mudirs' (sub-governors) being assigned during 1903 to Odeid (Al Udeid), Wakra (Al Wakrah), Zobara (Al Zubarah 18th-century town located 105 km from Doha. ), and Musalamia Island (Suwad ash Shamaliyah);
- 'the desire of Sheikh Ahmed bin-Thani, Ruler of Qatar, to be taken under British Protection', in 1902, and a Proposed Protectorate Treaty with the Ruler of Qatar, in 1904;
- the Ruler of Abu Dhabi's intention to occupy Odeid in 1906.
The main correspondents are: the Viceroy, the Foreign Office (Thomas Henry Sanderson), the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Henry Petty-Fitzmaurice, Marquess of Lansdowne), and the India Office The department of the British Government to which the Government of India reported between 1858 and 1947. The successor to the Court of Directors. .
The volume includes a divider which gives the year that the subject file was opened, the subject heading, and a list of correspondence references contained in it arranged by year. This divider is placed at the front of the volume.
The volume also contains the translation of a Turkish press article.
- Extent and format
- 1 volume (425 folios)
- Arrangement
The papers are arranged in approximate chronological order from the rear to the front of the file.
- Physical characteristics
Foliation: the foliation sequence commences at the inside front cover with 1 and terminates at the inside back cover with 428; these numbers are written in pencil, are circled, and are located in the top right corner of the recto The front of a sheet of paper or leaf, often abbreviated to 'r'. side of each folio. A previous foliation sequence, which is also circled, has been superseded and therefore crossed out.
Condition: the spine is detached from the volume and preserved in a polyester sheet, on folio 427.
- Written in
- English in Latin script View the complete information for this record
Use and share this item
- Share this item
File 160/1903 'Persian Gulf: El Katr; appointment of Turkish Mudirs; question of Protectorate Treaty with El Katr' [8r] (20/860), British Library: India Office Records and Private Papers, IOR/L/PS/10/4, in Qatar Digital Library <https://www.qdl.qa/archive/81055/vdc_100026021679.0x000015> [accessed 19 March 2024]
https://www.qdl.qa/en/archive/81055/vdc_100026021679.0x000015
Copy and paste the code below into your web page where you would like to embed the image.
<meta charset="utf-8"><a href="https://www.qdl.qa/en/archive/81055/vdc_100026021679.0x000015">File 160/1903 'Persian Gulf: El Katr; appointment of Turkish Mudirs; question of Protectorate Treaty with El Katr' [‎8r] (20/860)</a> <a href="https://www.qdl.qa/en/archive/81055/vdc_100026021679.0x000015"> <img src="https://iiif.qdl.qa/iiif/images/81055/vdc_100000000365.0x0003c9/IOR_L_PS_10_4_0020.jp2/full/!280,240/0/default.jpg" alt="" /> </a>
This record has a IIIF manifest available as follows. If you have a compatible viewer you can drag the icon to load it.https://www.qdl.qa/en/iiif/81055/vdc_100000000365.0x0003c9/manifestOpen in Universal viewerOpen in Mirador viewerMore options for embedding images
Copyright: How to use this content
- Reference
- IOR/L/PS/10/4
- Title
- File 160/1903 'Persian Gulf: El Katr; appointment of Turkish Mudirs; question of Protectorate Treaty with El Katr'
- Pages
- front, back, spine, edge, head, tail, front-i, 2r:427v, back-i
- Author
- East India Company, the Board of Control, the India Office, or other British Government Department
- Usage terms
- Open Government Licence