'File 73/7 II (D 22) Status of Koweit [Kuwait] - Baghdad railway, Anglo Turkish negotiations' [‎195v] (396/540)

Note on the Boundaries of the Kuwait Principality.
%
In surveying the disputed boundaries of the Kuwait shaikhdom it will be
convenient to commence from a definite point, proceed by west and south to east
and return northwards to the first point, thus completing the circumscribing line.
For starting point we will take Umm Kasr as being the most definite point and
one on which some reliable evidence is available.
Umm Kasr lies near the head of the Khor Zobair {vide Lorimer's Gazetteer,
Volume II, page 1503). The earliest reference to the place is to be found in
Colonel Lewis Pelley's report of his journey to Riadh (Bushire Residency An office of the East India Company and, later, of the British Raj, established in the provinces and regions considered part of, or under the influence of, British India.
letter No. 57, dated the 15th May 1866), where in paragraph 18 he records that
" Originally the Shaikhs of Kuwait occupied a fort called Mongassar on the
Zobair creek a little to the northward " I may note here that I have at various
times and from at least a dozen of the Kuwait greybeards personally verified this
statement to be an accepted fact. The place only came into prominence in the
early part of 1902 owing to the arbitrary location by the Turkish Government of
a detachment in the mud-walled enclosure called the Fort: this act seems to
have been retaliatory to the British support accorded to Mubarakh a few months
before. On the 15th February 1902 the spot was visited by H. M. S. "Sphinx",
shortly after the arrival of the Turkish detachment, and it will be seen from
Commander Kemp's report dated the 20th February 1902, to the Senior Naval
Officer, that at that time the place was certainly regarded as within Kuwait terri
tory, and it was only the presence of the British Naval Officer and his personal
intervention which prevented an attack by Kuwait Arabs on the Turkish post.
Since that date the post has been maintained but with diminished numbers (the
present figure being 8 or 10 men). Though Mr. Consul Wratislaw in 1902
considered the Kuwait Shaikh's claims to Umm Kasr "very shadowy ", it is not
apparent that he relied upon any stronger evidence that the actual existence at
the time of a Turkish post and upon the fact that the Shaikh of Kuwait made
np immediate effort to eject the soldiers. Mr. Wratislaw, however, also comments
that "the Turks seem to have little claim beyond that of actual occupation "—
an occupation which we know to have been initiated only a few months earlier.
The probable and natural explanation (and the one always given by the Shaikh
himself) for his supine attitude in this matter, is that his valuable date-gardens
on the Shatt-al-Arab were hostages to fortune and he was not prepared to risk
reprisals on his main source of income in order to uphold his title to a barren and
comparatively worthless spot. Had the Shaikh not been influenced by a fear
that any direct action against the post might deprive him of British sympathy,
he would and certainly could have wiped out every Turkish post in his borders
with the greatest of ease at any time within the last ten years. The next
recorded opinion I find as to the ownership of Umm Kasr is in my predecessor's
letter No. 136, dated .the 4th January 1905, written after a tour past the Fort
with Mr. Lorimer's Gazetteer party, and in this he includes Umm Kasr within
the Shaikh's domain. The Shaikh's own view of his claim is given sufficiently
fully in my letter No. G.-53, dated the 3rd July 1912, and expresses what he has
always maintained verbally; in this connection a reference to Bushire Residency An office of the East India Company and, later, of the British Raj, established in the provinces and regions considered part of, or under the influence of, British India.
letter No. T-10, dated the 11th June 1905, is also invited. My own opinion
formed on numerous independent enquiries during the last three years from many
different persons. Bedouins and others, certainly supports the Shaikh's claim.
There is no question of his reviving a claim to the Fort; the Shaikh's objection
is to the existence of a Turkish post, for the continued presence of foreign
soldiers at a group of desert wells naturally connotes the jurisdiction of their
Government over them. In point of fact, I believe, the present fort was built by
the Turkish troops when the original mud-walled enclosure crumbled away.
The strongest evidence in the Shaikh's favour lies in the following facts
{a) That until the occupation of the posts at Umm Kasr and Safwan, it
occurred to no one that Turkish jurisdiction went so far.
{h) That to the present day disputes between the Bedouin at these wells
are referred to Kuwait as a matter of course.