'File 73/7 III (D 24) Status of Kuwait & Anglo-Turkish negotiations' [‎238r] (487/709)

to %
r\ 'V-% 4- l -----
[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty s Government. ]
[A]
ASIATIC TURKEY AND ARABIA. [June 10.]
GOlSliTDENTIAL. Section 7.
^ [27274] No. 1.
Note hy Captain Wilson regarding the proposed provision for the Extradition from
Koweit of persons wanted hij the Turks.
[N.B.—The word " extradition " is used for convenience only : it is scarcely applicable
in its strict sense.]
THE following notes represent, I believe, generally speaking, the view of the
question that would be taken by Sir P. Cox : I have written without reference to
records, however, and subject to correction on all points :—
1. Extradition has been refused by the sheikh in the past to the Turkish authorities,
and cases are on record at Bushire where the demand has been made by the authorities
of Basra, not complied with by the sheikh and not pressed by the Turks. The existing
status quo certainly does not provide for it, and on this ground I think we should
resist any formal demand for it.
2. The Sheikh of Koweit could not possibly enforce extradition on his dependants
on the drastic scale provided for in Hakki Pasha An Ottoman title used after the names of certain provincial governors, high-ranking officials and military commanders. 's draft, and his personal prerogatives
in such a matter are strictly limited by immemorial Arab custom and local observance.
3. The indiscriminate extradition of accused persons is contrary to well-known
and almost universally recognised Arab (and Mohammedan) custom ; whether provided
for in our agreement or not, it cannot in practice be observed locally and can only
lead to friction and give local Turkish authorities occasion to pick quarrels with the
sheikh.
A useful case to quote in support of the above contention might be the murder by
Arabs in 1904- of a Bahrein notable whilst hunting on Turkish territory in Hasa. Mv
recollection is that when we demanded the surrender of the guilty parties the Turks
pleaded that the malefactors had taken refuge with an Arab tribe who refused to
give them up, and that the Turkish authorities were not in a position to insist on their
surrender.
4. Hakki Pasha An Ottoman title used after the names of certain provincial governors, high-ranking officials and military commanders. 's draft provides for extradition of any persons wanted by the
Turkish provincial authorities whether Turkish subjects or not, and whether accused
of serious crime or of petty civil misdemeanour ; nor does it provide for any reciprocal
obligation on the part of the Turks. In all these respects it will certainly be
unacceptable and unworkable.
Turkey has refused " extradition " (the capitulations notwithstanding) to Great
Britain ; she has also generally in practice refused it to Persia, in spite of the specific
provisions of the treaties of 1746 and 1823. The fact is, the principle of extradition
is repugnant to eastern ideas.
5. My impression is that Hakki Pasha An Ottoman title used after the names of certain provincial governors, high-ranking officials and military commanders. 's draft goes far beyond the provisions of
Ottoman law on the subject.
No Arab chief in Turkish Arabia A term used by the British officials to describe the territory roughly corresponding to, but not coextensive with, modern-day Iraq under the control of the Ottoman Empire. or Mesopotamia is expected to hand over without
question any person against whom proceedings are pending in the Ottoman tribunals
(by which the judicial tribunals are presumably intended). In this connection I am
under the impression that the papers regarding the Glanville murder at Basra in
1904 or 1905 will show that the local authorities at Basra admitted their inability to
obtain the surrender of accused persons who had taken refuge with certain Arab tribes
such as the Muntafik and Al-bu-Mahammad.
6. In support of the contention (paragraph 3 supra) regarding Arab and
Mohammedan custom, it may be mentioned that no arrangements for extradition inter
se exist between any Mohammedan principalities as far as my own knowledge goes,
e.g., Muscat and Zanzibar, Muscat and Bahrein, Bahrein and Koweit, and Persia and
Turkey (in practice). Each case is dealt with on its merits as it arises, the laws of
hospitality and sanctuary being jealously guarded. See Moirs Commentary on the
Koran and Doughty. The Koranic law has, I believe, explicit provisions on the
subject.
[2950 k—7]