Coll 30/67 'Koweit & H.M.G.: Policy of H.M.G. in regard to relations with the Shaikh of Koweit.' [‎216v] (432/705)

16
is undesirable to say anything to the sheikh in the sense of that clause, as it mig t
conceivably come to the ears of Ibn Saud, whether through the sheikh oi
indirectly, with unfortunate effect on our relations with him. Ryan theretoie
suggests that this sentence should be omitted from the instructions.
I send you this simply as a record of Ryan’s remarks to me; I gathei that,
he spoke to you in the same sense. Fowle’s letter has not yet been consideied bi^^
my higher authorities.
Yours sincerely,
KENNETH JOHNSTONE.
[E 775/73991]
4 .—India Office to Foreign Office.—[Received February 1.)
gi r 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. , February 1, 1934.
I AM directed by the Secretary of State for India to say that he has had
under his consideration the proceedings of the interdepartmental meeting held at
the Foreign Office on Thursday, the 5th October, 1933, to discuss relations between
His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the Sheikh of Koweit,
and also the Political Resident’s despatch of the 25th October, 1933, containing
Colonel Fowle's recommendations on the tentative conclusions of the meeting in
question in the light of discussion of them with 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. , Koweit.
2. In the light of Colonel Fowle's views, Sir Samuel Hoare is definitely of
opinion that the question of declaring a protectorate over Koweit should not at
present be further pursued, and he considers that it should be possible to ensure
a sufficient degree of British control over the sheikhdom by adopting a policy of
tightening up our control over the sheikh as opportunity offers, by filling in the
gaps which at present exist in the agreements between the sheikh and His
Majesty’s Government. The gaps (with the exception of that discussed in the
following paragraph and of a slavery agreement) are not, in fact, very serious.
Apart from the major assurances contained in the agreement of 1899, the sheikh
has already given undertakings in respect of the arms traffic; he is precluded from
granting a pearling, sponge-fishing, or oil concession without the approval of His
Majesty's Government (though as regards oil the specific undertaking contained
in the letter of the 27th October, 1913 (No. XLI on p. 264 of Volume XI of the
1929 edition of A it chi s on’s Treaties), is by no means so clear as could be desired);
the control of aviation, whether military or civil, in his State will pass to His
Majesty’s Government in the event of 'his accepting the proposals which the
Resident has recently been instructed to make to him on this subject; while the
proposed amendment of the Koweit Order in Council A regulation issued by the sovereign of the United Kingdom on the advice of the Privy Council. , once the sheikh’s con
currence in this has been obtained, will place the question of jurisdiction over non-
Moslem foreigners in his State on a securer and more satisfactory basis.
3 . The delicate question of the direct correspondence which has gradually
established itself between the sheikh and Ibn Saud remains for consideration.
Sir Samuel Hoare has considered the alternatives discussed in paragraph 5 of
Colonel Fowle's despatch of the 25th October, and as a result he is of opinion,
subject to the views of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, that the first
alternative suggested by the Resident (which incidentally is, apparently, likely to
prove the less objectionable to the sheikh) is the right solution. Subject to
Sir John Simon's concurrence, he would propose, however, to approve the
Resident’s recommendation that Colonel Dickson should approach the sheikh
verbally on the lines suggested in paragraph 6 of Bushire despatch under con
sideration, with the modification suggested in Mr. Johnstone’s demi-official letter
of the 25th November last to Mr. Laithwaite. Sir Samuel Hoare would also
propose that it might be left to Colonel Fowle's discretion, after the sheikh’s
attitude has become known, to settle the matter in accordance with either of the
alternatives discussed in paragraph 5 of his despatch. The important question
whether special action should be taken to emphasise at Jedda to Ibn Saud the
nature of the relations which exist between His Majesty’s Government and the
sheikh might be considered when a reporc has been received from Colonel Fowle.
4. The question of the obligations of His Majesty’s Government for the
protection of Koweit, to which the Resident refers in paragraphs 7-11 of his