Coll 30/67 'Koweit & H.M.G.: Policy of H.M.G. in regard to relations with the Shaikh of Koweit.' [‎196r] (391/705)

Government would charge themselves with the defence of Koweit district.” The
Secretary of State, after consultation with the Foreign Office (Foreign Office
letter of the 13th October, 1902), replied (telegram No. 133 of the 14th October,
1902): “I approve your proposed reply about the guns, provided Koweit
district is clearly defined as the district adjoining or close to the bay of that
^name.” This assurance similarly admits of being read as an assurance ad hoc,
and it is relevant that when, in April 1911, enquiry was made by the Secretary
of State for India of the Government of India whether the definition in question
of Koweit territory had been communicated to the Sheikh, they replied that it
might be assumed that it had, but that it “ only referred to our pledge to defend
him against Ibn Rashid, who was threatening the immediate neighbourhood of
Koweit ” (telegram of the 6 th April, 1911).
8 . The more specific undertakings embodied in the Bunder Shweikh lease
of 1907, and quoted in paragraph 2 above, may be regarded as to some extent
committing us in respect of “the town of Koweit and its boundaries.” The
phrase “ its boundaries ” is, however, very vague, and could perhaps most
reasonably be construed as applying to the immediate district around Koweit
town. The discussions as to our obligations to the Sheikh which took place in
1911, and which are summarised in paragraphs 9 to 12 below, appear to have
turned essentially on the undertakings of 1899.
9. In 1911, in connexion with the Anglo-Turkish negotiations, the question
of our obligations was examined in some detail. The Government of India, on
being asked, with reference to Lord Lansdowne’s memorandum of 1902, to which
reference is made in paragraph 6 above, to “ define the region to which our
obligation extends,” and “ whether they accepted ” general description of
boundaries in Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. Gazetteer, p. 1059, &c., replied : “We are of
opinion that (1) our obligations extend to the limits of the Sheikh’s territory;
( 2 ) these limits, to the best of our knowledge, are defined with fair accuracy by
Lorimer, especially as regards northern portion. ...”
10 . The Secretary of State for India, in the light of the Government of
India’s views, wrote as follows to the Foreign Office (the 8 th April, 1911) :—
“ Viscount Morley is not aware on what grounds the opinion expressed
by the Marquess of Lansdowne in his memorandum of the 21st March, 1902,
is based, but he observes that the language used is very tentative, and, so
far as he knows, the subject was never pursued along the lines suggested by
his Lordship, except in the case of the attack on the immediate neighbour
hood of Koweit threatened by Ibn Rashid in the autumn of 1902. It will be
seen from the Government of India’s telegram of the 6 th April that this
incident does not affect their opinion that our general obligations extend to
the limits of Koweit territory as described in Vol. II, pp. 1059-1061, of
Lorimer’s Gazetteer of the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. , copy of which is in your possession.
In this Lord Morley concurs; that is to say, he thinks that, in the event
of unprovoked aggression by the Turks or by Arab tribes under Turkish
control, upon those limits, His Majesty’s Government could not abstain from
using their ‘ good offices ’ in the Sheikh’s favour. But the term ‘ good
offices ’ is a very vague one, which His Majesty’s Government are at liberty
to interpret at their discretion, and which they would doubtless interpret
with more or less strictness, according to the nature and locality of the
aggression, and all the circumstances of the case. It would, however, in his
Lordship’s opinion, be very impolitic to attempt, in dealing with the Sheikh,
to whittle down the extent of our obligations, since such a course would fill
his mind with suspicions, and could not fail to affect unfavourably our
prestige in the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. . ...”
11 . The Foreign Office replied, on the 9th May, 1911, that Sir E. Grey
concurred “ in the view of the Government of India, shared by Viscount Morley,
that these obligations extend to the whole territory of the Sheikh, as described
in the passage of Lorimer’s Gazetteer of the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. to which your
letter refers.”
12. In August 1911 the Government of India, after consultation with 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. (Sir P. Cox), recommended that His Majesty’s Government
should communicate to the Turks a copy of the agreement of 1899, with a note
that His Majesty’s Government had subsequently informed the Sheikh that, so
long as he and his heirs and successors acted up to their obligations under the
agreement, we charged ourselves to support them and to protect Koweit against.
[9823] c