File 2764/1904 Pt 5 'Baghdad Railway: Anglo-Turkish negotiations; concessions proposed in respect of Kowait; negotations with Hakki Pasha in London; Anglo-Turkish agreement.' [‎192r] (406/536)

12
FOREIGN SECRET TELEGRAMS.
Secret Department.
From Viceroy, 13th July 1912.
Foreign Secret. Bagdad railway negotiations. Yonr telegram of 1st
July. I find it difficult to reconcile statement that proposed arrangement is
a concession in appearance only, with the loss of large piece of territory by
the Sheikh, which is implied in the immediately following sentence. If any
real loss of territory is involved by these proposals, Sheikh will naturally
resent it, and the arrangement must consequently be deprecated. News just
received of German attempted intrigue with Sheikh (vide my telegram of
11th July) emphasises the necessity for carefully avoiding any concessions
that may estrange Sheikh and drive him into German hands, or which
Turkey may be able to transfer to Germany to our detriment.
If, however, the present status quo is clearly defined in such a way as to
place on record existing administrative influence of Sheikh throughout wider
limits attributed to Koweit in Lorimer’s Gazetteer ; if Warba and Bubian are
admitted by Turkey to be within Koweit limits and their garrison withdrawn,
and if Turkey agrees not to take any action, military or otherwise, within
those wider limits without our consent, the arrangement will not involve loss
of territory and becomes practicable. We should, however, be given full
opportunity of explaining any arrangement contemplated concerning Koweit
to Sheikh and obtaining his previous concurrence.
I see no objection to proposed Turkish agent at Koweit, provided Sheikh’s
position is recognised as autonomous, and if we are given opportunity of
explaining to Sheikh that the presence of an agent is the natural result and
price of autonomy and a direct recognition of it, as illustrated by Khedive
having a Turkish agent at Cairo. Sheikh, it is understood, will be guaranteed
enjoyment of his properties in Turkish territory (vide memorandum to Porte).
There would be no objection to a convention with Turkey confirming our
agreements with Sheikh if terms are worded so as to imply nothing more
than suzerainty, but will this satisfy Turkey, who desires the terms to be
compatible with her sovereign rights, which are out of the question ?
I need hardly emphasise the importance throughout these negotiations of
avoiding anything which in eyes of Sheikh, and consequently of (? ruler of)
Bahrein and trucial chiefs, would appear want of good faith or admission of
weakness on our part in a region where, at the present moment, we
undoubtedly are strong.