"الملف 73/7 I (D 19) وضع الكويت، سكة حديد بغداد، والمفاوضات الأنجلو تركية في ١٩١١" [و‎‎٣‎٥] (٦٣١/٨٧)

3
place proved to be actually, morally, and historically part of Ottoman territory
to-day, and that she has no aims at direct or indirect encroachment. If that
is done we will take back our letters with shame, and we shall be the first to
applaud the English Government's friendly declarations.
I'V e are nure that this very simple logic will be well received by English
statesmen, and we think the time has come to put an end to the disturbed and
vague position in the Persian Gulf, and for the two sides to stretch out to each
other a hand of sincerity free from all fraud and deception; for it must be
admitted that no important cause of separation between England and Turkey
will remain when once the Bussorah nightmare has been laid aside. To come
to an understanding would dry up gossip at the source. If action is based on
equity we can see no real reason why an understanding should not be come to ;
only it is necessary that Turkey should not be treated as Central African chiefs
or sheikhs on the shores of Hadramaut and Muscat, and therefore that in the
negotiations our treaty, historical, and moral rights should be respected.
If this is not done the Persian Gulf will become not a cross-roads—-a
battle-ground for the interests of the whole of Europe—but a blind alley. To
turn this into a cross-roads, to make it a high-road, depends on England's
sincerity, and on whether she will pursue a policy which will give us no
cause to hesitate. As Rifaat Pasha's statement shows that this is the case
we can afford to wait, as it proves that England is ready to put an end in
all sincerity to the reign of jealousy and hesitation.
All politics of our time turn on the pivot of ententes, which are formed by
countries as obstacles to the outbreak of wars. Alliances do not meet the need
as it is impossible for two countries to have common interests on all questions.
Eor a country like Turkey, for instance, which has different interests in each
province and has to follow a different aim in every part the time has long come
to adopt a method of treatment to each part and province. That is why we
do not shrink from discussion with England, but on the contrary, support
discussion within the bounds of reason.
We say " within the bounds of reason," because the Times article we
published cannot of course form a basis of agreement. Eor instance, the
Times says, " up to the present both Turkey and Persia have neglected
their duty as possessors of the shores of the Persian Gulf, Eor 100 years that
duty has been discharged by England." Now it is not 100 years since the
English flag was seen in the Persian Gulf, As a matter of fact, it is half-a-
century since the East India Company passed through the danger of decline
and death not only in the Persian Gulf, but even in India. What we mean
is that when England has not possessed a real sovereignty even in India for
half-a-century it is a contradiction of historical facts for the Times to consi
der England as possessor and ruler of the Persian Gulf for the past 100 years.
There is no country whose actual sovereignty in the Persian Gulf has lasted
longer than that of Turkey, whose flag has waved in that sea since the time of
Sultan Suleiman the Lawgiver. It may be that the Ottoman Government's
power in those parts has been weakened now and then, but if there is any
country which has a historical, moral, and real right to the Gulf it is our own.
The Times say, i( It appears that Turkey thinks it necessary and sufH-
cient, in order to establish Ottoman sovereignty, to occupy the territories
claimed by Ottoman troops." No just person can deny that it is Turkey who
has made the greatest military sacrifices on the shores of the Persian Gulf, and
has poured out the blood of her soldiers for her sovereignty. England may
have carried out a sort of sea-police duty and sacrificed a few men, but we want
to weigh the Ottoman blood spilt up to the present moment against the English
blood ; if the English can prove that they have spilt one-tenth as much blood
as we have we will give up our claim.
Moreover, how far has England penetrated from the coast ? How far
does her actual sovereignty extend in places where ours does not ? Does she
levy taxes on the people, take men for military service, or form courts of justice
in those parts ? What has been done in proof of soyereignty ? If a comparison