Skip to item: of 495
Information about this record Back to top
Open in Universal viewer
Open in Mirador IIIF viewer

File 757/1909 'Persian Gulf:- Turkey and Turkish aggression (Occupation of Zakhnuniyeh Island. Attitude in piracy cases. Mudirs at Zubara, Odaid and Wakra) British Relations with Turkey in Persian Gulf' [‎93r] (190/495)

The record is made up of 1 volume (245 folios). It was created in 1909-1911. 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.

Transcription

This transcription is created automatically. It may contain errors.

Apply page layout

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.,
n 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-
“ dence 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 1904 the Government of India suggested that the Sheikh
might retain the Turkish flag for use at Koweit and use a distinctive flag (i.e. a
Turkish flag with the word “ Koweit ” written across it in Arabic) elsewhere
(Secret letter No. 2247 of Sth 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 be 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’Conor’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

The volume comprises telegrams, despatches, correspondence, memoranda, and notes, relating to the Turkish occupation of Zakhnuniyah Island, the Ottoman attitude towards piracy cases, and the appointment of officials in Zubara, Odeid and Wakra.

The discussion in the volume relates to the Turkish occupation of a disused fort (built by Shaikh Ali bin Khalifah, Ruler of Bahrain) on Zakhnuniyah Island and the placing of Ottoman officials in Zubara, Odeid and Wakra. Correspondence reflects British concerns over Turkish claims to sovereignty in the coastal area of the Qatar Peninsula and how these could best be resisted, particularly in the strategic context of the construction of the Berlin to Baghdad railway. In discussing Zakhnuniyah, reference is made to typed extract of the relevant page (1937) of Lorimer's Persian Gulf Historically used by the British to refer to the sea area between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. Often referred to as The Gulf or the Arabian Gulf. Gazetteer (Geographical and Statistical Volume) which describes how the Dawasir tribe halted there, during the course of their emigration from Najd (see folio 236).

Further discussion surrounds Turkish obstruction of the investigation of cases of piracy in the Persian Gulf Historically used by the British to refer to the sea area between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. Often referred to as The Gulf or the Arabian Gulf. and the proposed visit of H M S Redbreast to Al Bidaa.

Included in the volume are copies of the Committee for Imperial Defence papers 'Turkish Agression in the Persian Gulf Historically used by the British to refer to the sea area between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. Often referred to as The Gulf or the Arabian Gulf. " and 'Local Action in the Persian Gulf Historically used by the British to refer to the sea area between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. Often referred to as The Gulf or the Arabian Gulf. ' (ff 12-15).

The principal correspondents in the volume include the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir Edward Grey); the Viceroy of India; the ruler of Bahrain; the Political Agent A mid-ranking political representative (equivalent to a Consul) from the diplomatic corps of the Government of India or one of its subordinate provincial governments, in charge of a Political Agency. , Kuwait (Captain William Henry Irvine Shakespear); the British Ambassador to Constantinople; His Britannic Majesty's Acting Consul for Arabistan (Lieutenant Arnold Talbot Wilson); the Political Resident A senior ranking political representative (equivalent to a Consul General) from the diplomatic corps of the Government of India or one of its subordinate provincial governments, in charge of a Political Residency. in the Persian Gulf Historically used by the British to refer to the sea area between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. Often referred to as The Gulf or the Arabian Gulf. (Lieutenant-Colonel Percy Zachariah Cox); the Secretary to the Government of India in the Foreign Department.

Extent and format
1 volume (245 folios)
Arrangement

The papers are arranged in approximate chronological order from the rear to the front of the volume.

The subject 757 ( Persian Gulf Historically used by the British to refer to the sea area between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. Often referred to as The Gulf or the Arabian Gulf. . Turkish Aggression) consists of 1 volume IOR/L/PS/10/162.

Physical characteristics

Foliation: the foliation sequence commences at the first folio with 1 and terminates at the last folio with 241; these numbers are written in pencil and are located at the top right corner of the recto The front of a sheet of paper or leaf, often abbreviated to 'r'. side of each folio.

The foliation sequence does not include the front and back covers, nor does it include the two leading and ending flyleaves.

A flap is pasted to the verso The back of a paper sheet or leaf. of folio 188.

Written in
English in Latin script
View the complete information for this record

Use and share this item

Share this item
Cite this item in your research

File 757/1909 'Persian Gulf:- Turkey and Turkish aggression (Occupation of Zakhnuniyeh Island. Attitude in piracy cases. Mudirs at Zubara, Odaid and Wakra) British Relations with Turkey in Persian Gulf' [‎93r] (190/495), British Library: India Office Records and Private Papers, IOR/L/PS/10/162, in Qatar Digital Library <https://www.qdl.qa/archive/81055/vdc_100030529666.0x0000bf> [accessed 22 January 2020]

Link to this item
Embed this item

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_100030529666.0x0000bf">File 757/1909 'Persian Gulf:- Turkey and Turkish aggression (Occupation of Zakhnuniyeh Island. Attitude in piracy cases. Mudirs at Zubara, Odaid and Wakra) British Relations with Turkey in Persian Gulf' [&lrm;93r] (190/495)</a>
<a href="https://www.qdl.qa/en/archive/81055/vdc_100030529666.0x0000bf">
	<img src="https://images.qdl.qa/iiif/images/81055/vdc_100000000419.0x000037/IOR_L_PS_10_162_0190.jp2/full/!280,240/0/default.jpg" alt="" />
</a>
IIIF details

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_100000000419.0x000037/manifestOpen in Universal viewerOpen in Mirador viewerMore options for embedding images

Use and reuse
Download this image