'A Précis of the Relations of the British Government with the Tribes and Shaikhs of 'Arabistan By Lieutenant A T Wilson, Acting Consul for Arabistan' [‎36r] (76/143)

57
r
.
They have been honoured by both parties in the breach rather than in the
tn'hv'Th C< 1 an< ? U 1S doll . btf . ul wh ether their authority has ever been appealed
to by the local representatives of the two Powers-
t - d f h n“ ost lra P°rtant points dealt with are those relating to the jurisdie-
Pe?d/n?l nt? trlbunal ® ojer Persian subjects and to the naturalisation of
1;“-?t t0I ?ans. Not less than 75,000 Arabs on the Turkish bank of
. A b ar0 ° f tbe Kaab or the hluhaisin tribes, originally Per-
ic n, and in many cases quite recent arrivals from the Persian side Thev
number nearly half the total riverain population, and whilst they have at
MohanmeraT* 1 ^ , Tur - kish Gover nment serious anxiety, the Shaikhs of
Mohammerah never having attempted to raise the tribes under their in
fluence against the Turkish Government, the Turks, particularly in recent
the h -t V h Tm 3 i t0 resent , tbe S reat influence wielded in their territory by
all Arabs livi^nT"^ .,^ theref T attem Pted to induce
nationalitv I s darklsh territory to take out Turkish certificates of
TurkPh R’u.rta „ C0 T ndlt10 " P^dent to recognition of their rights in the
unless th^v tat, f i L t W ' i T w ey hll e e even S°ne so far as to tell Arabs that
tnv tini nft rl 0 ' lt Tu rkish certificates of nationality they will be refused
.d H' vl / d f f ° r , wrongS ’ a - n<1 Wl11 136 forced to leave their date groves,
but they have so far taken no active steps to enforce these threats. ^
It is, of course, possible to argue the legality of this course under the
provisions of the second half of Article 8 of the Treaty of Erzeroum quoted
above but the fact that it has, as far as the Shatt-al-Arab frontier is con
cerned, remained a dead-letter to this day should be sufficient in itself to
refute such a contention.
It may moreover be held that the second of the questions 1 raised by the
“ Fvnifn^ 10US M°p y w g the Treaty of Erzeroum and reproduced in the
Explanatory Note- {vide previous Chapter) shows that the Turkish Gov
ernment contemplated without demur the possibility of tribes genuinely de-
pendent on Persia finding themselves partly established in Ottoman territory,
cmd it will be noted that, the mediating Commissioners gave no reply to the
?° rt ^ aS , t0 ^ vhether t! J at of a genuine Persian tribe
icn finds itself in Turkey becomes subject to Persia; they dealt only with
the territorial question raised. J J
The position of the Shaikh vis a vis the Arab tribes dependent on
i ersia but resident in Turkey presents many anomalies, but has the sanction
ot usage and ancient custom. The members of such tribes are liable to
military service and the Shaikh has not infrequently called them up for
operations against the Bani Turuf and other recalcitrant tribes : the oblma-
tmn is doubtless distasteful to the tribesmen, but the right of the Shaikh
to demand it has never been disputed by them, and important landowners,
iurkish subjects, such as the Naqibs family, Ahmad Eifendi, Saiyid Talib,
have > m virtu e of engagements dating from the time of Shaikh
HajI Jabir, personally made themselves responsible for the collection and
despatch of levies, a proceeding naturally very distasteful to the Turks. 3
In tribal matters, the jurisdiction of the Shaikh is unquestioned by such
tri.iesmcn and in cases of blood feuds, as in other questions in which tribal
law prevails, his intervention is necessary to eftect a settlement, the idea of
taking such cases to a 1 urkish Court of Law being wholly foreign to Arab
ideas. This, again, is galling to Turkish susceptibilities.
. Question of the Turkish Government“ As regards the drafting (redaction) ot another part of the same
article (2) concerning tribes genuinely dependent on Persia, but who might be divided, one half find-V- them
selves on Ottoman and the other half on Persian territory, the Sublime Porte enquires whether the pari of the
tribe which finds itself in Turkey also becomes subject to Persia, and in consequence, the territories which it
possesses abandoned to Persia and whether Persia could at any time dispute with the Porte the poss ssioe of
such territorii s. ’
Answer of the Representatives of the mediating Powers “ That under no pretext whatever will Persia be
able to lay claim to tenitories situated on the right bank of the river, not to belong to Turkey, even though
Persian tribes should be established partly or wholly on the said bank or in the said territories.”
2 (Vide Mr. Parker’s Memorandum of 6th December 1906 on the Turko-Persian Frontier question.)
3 In 1908 and again in 1910 the Wall of Basrah issued orders to the Turkish officials alon^ the river to
forbid all Arabs to proceed to Mohammerah to join the Shaikh’s levies, should they be called '"upon to do so.
On the first occasion the protest had no effect, and was not enforced, and on the second occasion, the Shaikh
had no need for these levies and did not call them up. But the Wall of Basrah ordered Arabs intending to
join his forces on this occasion to be warned that if they did so they would be imprisoned, deprived of their
property and rights in their lands, and expelled from Turkey.
I