ملف رقم ٧٥٧ لسنة ١٩٠٩ "الخليج الفارسي: تركيا والعدوان التركي (احتلال جزيرة الزخنونية. الموقف تجاه قضايا القرصنة. المدراء في الزبارة والعُديد والوكرة) العلاقات البريطانية مع تركيا في الخليج الفارسي" [و‎‎٥‎٩] (٤٩٥/١٢٢)

[This iJocuireent is the Propeity of His Britannic Majesty’s Government.}
Mr. Marling to Sir Edicard Greg.—(Received November 28.)
(No. 843.)
Sir, Pera, November 23, 1910.
WITH reference to your despatch No. 312 of the 17th October and Sir Gerard
Lowther’s despatch No. 797 of the 31st October concerning the arbitrary and aggressive
proceedings of the Ottoman local authorities in Bagdad and Bussorah, I have the
honour to enclose paraphrases of two telegrams from His Majesty’s consul at Bagdad,
reporting that the property numbered No. 6 in his despatch No. 42 of the 5 th September
has been demolished under circumstances of injury and insult, that the authorities had
given notice of their intention to expropriate part of Messrs. Lynch’s head offices at a
price little more than a third of that estimated by their local manager, that it is
rumoured locally that the temporary permission to tow barges given in 1899 is about
to be withdrawn, and that the general effect produced on British subjects was so
deplorable that some of them—presumably Indian Moslems—were actually becoming
Ottoman subjects mainly owing to the apparent inability of the British authorities to
afford them proper protection.
Mr. Lorimer also expresses the opinion that the Bagdad municipal loan should
not be entrusted to the present local Government, or in any case should not be given
until the question of compensation to British subjects has been settled.
I have further just received a written unofficial communication from the Minister
for Foreign Affairs, complaining that Lynch’s steamers fly the British flag when moored
at Bagdad or Bussorah.
As regards the demolitions, Sir Gerard Lowther in his telegram No. 246 of the
11 th instant reported to you that the Minister of the Interior had practically decided
to indemnify the owners for their losses, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs gave
me a similar assurance again yesterday morning. The Minister of the Interior has,
moreover, declared that the Government has decided to pay such indemnities “ should
it be proved that the regulations on the subject have been contravened.” In reply to
the remark that after the buildings were removed it was difficult to prove that they
were not in a dangerous state before demolition, he replied that there had also been
numerous strong complaints from natives whose property had been similarly treated,
that the matter might come up in Parliament, that one of the Bagdad committee
deputies had received secret instructions to investigate the whole affair, that his
conclusions seemed most damaging to the vali, that both native and foreign subjects
would have to be indemnified, and that all his (the Minister’s) colleagues were in favour
of recalling Nazim Pasha.
General Nazim Pasha has the reputation of being a strict disciplinarian, and is
rather the type of a blunt soldier who is ignorant, as his recent methods at Bagdad
have shown, of the niceties of civil administration. As you are aware, he has been
an opponent of the committee, and early in 1909 was suddenly appointed Minister of
War by Kiamil Pasha, with the idea of compelling the officers to cease dabbling in
politics. This excited the fierce anger of the committee, who promptly brought about
the violent and unconstitutional fall of the Grand Vizier and his new War Minister.
Again, after the mutiny of the 13th April, 1909, Nazim Pasha incurred the displeasure
of the committee by accepting the post of commander of the mutinous Constantinople
army corps, which he reduced to order, and advocated punishing without the interven
tion of the Macedonian forces. Being popular with the rank and file his presence in
the capital was irksome to the committee, who apparently resolved to send him to the
distant post of Bagdad, with the ulterior object of ruining his reputation and dismissing
him as a failure. It is not impossible that Nazim Pasha’s arbitrary methods of improving
Bagdad were indirectly suggested to him by some member of the committee with a
view to compassing his downfall, and it seems undoubted that they would like to be
able to say that his recall was due to the English, to whom Nazim was reputed to be
friendly. It is on this account that in our written and verbal complaints about the
recent high-handed proceedings at Bagdad this embassy has been careful to omit any
mention of his name, and to refer always to “ the local authorities ” or “ the Bagdad
[2988 ee — 1 ]