'File 73/7 I (D 19) Status of Kuwait & Baghdad Railway, and Anglo-Turkish negotiations 1911' [‎187r] (407/631)

[This Document i.s tlis Property of His Britannic Majesty 's GflTC raiBcnt.]
EASTERN DEPARTMENT [April 3.]
SECRET SERIES. S ection 2.
[12035] No. 1.
Sir G. Lowther to Sir Edward Grey.— (Received April 3.)
(No. 205.)
Sir, Constantinople, March 28, 1911,
WITH reference to my despatch No. 183, Confidential, of the 22nd March,
concerning the Bagdad Railway-Koweit, &c., negotiations, I have the honour to
enclose translation of an article by Hussein Djahid Bey, commenting on one in the
" Times " of the 23rd March. The idea underlying his remarks is to suggest that His
Majesty's Government and the Opposition do not see eye to eye on the questions at
issue, and that, while the former are inclined to advocate the settlement desired by
Turkey, the latter are inclined to take up a less friendly standpoint in the matter. He
denies that an increase in Turkey's strength in the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. regions would
endanger British political interests, and goes out of his way to point out the " obvious
error " in thinking that Turkey is likely to have any designs on India.
I have, &c.
GERARD LOWTHEli
Enciosure in No. 1.
Extract f rom the " Tanin " of March 28, 1911.
T he " Times " A rticle.
(Translation.)
IN passing judgment on statements in the "Times," one must always remember
that that newspaper holds political views opposed to those of the British Cabinet. The
" Times " supports the Conservative leaders, such as Lord Curzon and Lord Lansdowne,
on the Bagdad Railway question, and blames the Liberal Government for not acting
with sufficient firmness and severity. What angers the " Times" most is that criticism
should be directed against the rejection of the proposal made to England in 1903.
At that time the Conservatives were in office. The Germans invited British
capitalists to take part in the Bagdad Railway construction; but the proposal was
rejected by the Conservative party, on the ground that the line would be opposed to
British interests. In this there was also the idea that the Germans would be unable to
accomplish the task unaided.
Lord Morley's statement that the apprehensions of 1903 were unjustified moves
the " Times," the Conservative organ, to reply, and to defend the Conservative
statesmen. Our object in giving this explanation is to prevent the views of the
" Times " from being accepted as the point of view of the whole of England.
In a recent article the "Times" said that the British Government was to blame
for not preventing the encroachment made by Ottoman troops on part of Koweit
territory and urged the Cabinet actually to interfere in case of need. The difference
between the "Times'" violent language and Sir E. Grey's refusal to accept the
expression " right of protection over Koweit" will doubtless not escape the attention
of Ottoman public opinion. . „ .
It is clear that no change has taken place in the (Conservative point of view since
1903 ; it is clear that the Bagdad Railway is still regarded by them with an eye of
displeasure. The " Times" says so openly ; it argues that this railway is a source of
danger to England and that it offers her no advantage.
In our opinion the Bagdad-Bussorah line can never constitute a danger to
Eno-land. Since—as the " Times " admits—she has no intention of seizing territory in
the^ Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. or Irak, an increase in the strength of Turkey in those regions can
never endanger British political interests. We are convinced that they themselves do
not seriously believe that an increase in Turkey's strength in the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. would
constitute a menace to India. To think it likely that we have designs on India an to
[1969 c—2]