File 2764/1904 Pt 4 'Baghdad Railway: Anglo-Turkish negotiations; proposals of Turkish Govt; status of Kowait' [‎71v] (147/674)

From Viceroy, iitJi April 1911.
Private Your private telegram of 31st ultimo. This proposal appears
at first sight to offer better hope of a satisfactory settlement It is essential
howeve? that strength of our position at Koweit and m the Gulf should not
be ignored, and that in the adjustment of all furkish eiaims m the ju no
opening should be allowed for encroachment on the shore of (!| df l y
inV Other Power. The following are the conditions that I consider should
he obtained :— „ x- i
(1.) Autonomy of the Sheikh to be complete as that of Egypt or former >
of Eastern Roumelia. .. oi, -m
(2.) Construction of port to be British concession from Sheikh
(3 ) Port Customs to be administered by us jointly with Sheikh, subject
in case of transit duties to scrutiny by Turkish representative, and
(4.) DuraSTof enhanced Turkish Customs to depend on the absence of
preferential rates on Bagdad and branch lines, and on non-
infringement of British rights in Gulf.
(5.) Policing of the port to be in our hands.
( 6 .) J urisdiction, civil and criminal, of port to rest with us except where
Sheikh’s subjects alone concerned. c au -i u
(7.) No fortifications to be built or troops other than of Sheikh and
ourselves to be located at Koweit without our consent.
( 8 .) Lighting, buoying, and pilotage of the Gulf, including Shat-el-Aiab,
to be in our hands. I regard this as important.
Sheikh would be so favourably affected by assured autonomy that I
consider we could easily arrive at a satisfactory agreement with him
regarding conditions (2), (3), (5), and ( 6 ) above.
From Viceroy, 29th April 1911.
Private. Hirtzel’s private letter to Eoreign Secretary of 7th April.
If it should be possible to secure an arrangement with Turkey on terms
contained in memorandum enclosed in Eoreign Office letter of 3rd April, the
result will be eminently satisfactory. There are, however, a few amendments
that I would like to suggest.
Paragraphs .(1) and (n) : it might be laid down that we and the Sheikh
are to jointly administer the Customs and transit duties. It would have to
be so, and it is as well to state the fact clearly.
Paragraph (o): we should add “ except when subjects of the Sheikh are
alone concerned, civil and criminal jurisdiction of port should rest with
British officials.”
Paragraph (x) : The drafting is not clear. Should it not be “there shall
be no interference with existing British buoys or with, &c., &c., by British
agency An office of the East India Company and, later, of the British Raj, headed by an agent. r
It seems also important to add after the words “ coasts of the Gulf,” the
following sentence : “or the approaches of the Shat-el-Arab.”
Paragraph (y) should read “ the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. and Shat-el-Arab shall be
open to the navigation of all countries.”
This is a counsel of perfection, but it would, I think, be wise to obtain
these points, if possible.
From Secretary of State to Viceroy, 1st Jane 1911.
Private. Your official telegram of 16th May. Bagdad Railway terminus.
As Turkey has not yet been approached on lines dealt with in private
telegrams ending with yours of 29th April, please let me have by telegraph
as soon as possible your observations on situation created by Admiral’s view
that Basrah is a more suitable terminus than Koweit.