Coll 30/21 'Persian Gulf: Koweit. Blockade by Ibn Saud. Koweit-Nejd Relations' [‎176r] (362/1142)

despatch, is one of considerable importance. The general position is examined in
the 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. memorandum B. 427/P.Z. 6535/33, of which copies have already
been communicated to the Foreign Office. The Secretary of State agrees 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. that the agreements of 1899 and 1907, containing as ^
merely a promise of good offices, the applicability of which to the whole
sheikhdom as distinct from the town of Koweit is open to doubt, are not of great
material importance so far as “protection'’ is concerned. The undertaking of
real importance is that given to the sheikh in 1914 in return for the co-operation
of his predecessor against the Turks.
5. Subject to Sir John Simon’s views, Sir Samuel Hoare, on a consideration
of the position as a whole, is in agreement with Colonel Fowle's view that the
phraseologv of this undertaking and the use of the word sheikhdom and not
“town ” would appear to place definitely a responsibility for the protection of the
whole principality of Koweit on His Majesty’s Government. He is, at the same
time, in entire agreement with the Resident that such an obligation, if His
Majesty’s Government now formally confirm that they recognise its existence,
cannot be regarded as relieving the sheikh completely of the responsibility of his
own defence, and that “the sheikh should certainly be able to deal with any small
raids across his frontiers and should only look for assistance from His Majesty s
Government in the case of more serious incursions.’’ Such a construction would,
as Colonel Fowle suggests, be consistent with the attitude adopted by His
Majesty’s Government after the Akhwan operations of 1928-29, though it is
relevant that no close examination of the precise obligations in the matter of His
Majesty’s Government was undertaken at that time. Should Sir John Simon
share the views expressed in this paragraph, Sir Samuel Hoare will cause the
Resident to be instructed accordingly.
6. While the Secretary of State, as stated above, would be opposed to the
declaration of a protectorate, and is satisfied, as at present advised, that the
desiderata of His Majesty’s Government can be sufficiently secured by indirect
tightening up of our control over the sheikh, he is at the same time impressed by
the informal character of the engagements which have been entered into on behalf
of Koweit. He would, therefore, be disposed to see advantage in consolidating
the various undertakings which have from time to time been given on either side
in a formal treaty on the lines of the Qatar Treaty of 1916, could this be secured
without much difficulty. This would probably involve a reiteration and possibly a
more formal specification by His Majesty’s Government of their responsibility
for protection of the principality of Koweit. Moreover, as stated in the India
Office note B. 427/P.Z. 6535/33 on this subject, the assurances at present given to
the sheikh are, in practice, renewed to each successor in return for his acceptance
of the obligations, liability for which was accepted by his predecessors, and in
1918 it appears to have been held that our obligations held good pnly so long as
the ruling sheikh on his side complied with his engagements. It is arguable that
a formal treaty might place a heavier burden on His Majesty’s Government with
out correspondingly binding the sheikh. But it seems doubtful whether this view
could, in fact, be sustained. Formal recognition by His Majesty’s Government of
a Sheikh of Koweit would presumably be necessary before the engagements entered
into with previous sheikhs could be regarded as binding on eithei paity. Any
formal comprehensive treaty which might be drawn up could presumably be so
framed as to make it clear that obligations were entirely reciprocal, and that the
liability of His Majesty’s Government held good only so long as they were satisfied
with the performance by the sheikh of his obligations under the tieaty. Finally,
so far as protection is concerned, if the view suggested in paragraph 5 above is.
accepted, that a general liability (within the limits described) for the protection
of the principalitv of Koweit as a whole must already be regarded as resting on
His Majesty’s Government, no material increase of their responsibilities would
be involved in reiterating their acceptance of that liability in a formal treaty,
while the mere fact of reiteration might make it easier to obtain the consent of the
sheikh th a consolidating agreement. The Secretary of State would welcome
Sir John Simon’s views on this point. .
7. Subject to the views of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the
Secretary of State would suggest that, in view of the small margin of difference
which appears to exist between the provisional recommendations of the inter
departmental conference of the 5th October last, the recommendations of 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 The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. , and the proposals in this letter, it will be