'File 73/7 I (D 19) Status of Kuwait & Baghdad Railway, and Anglo-Turkish negotiations 1911' [‎163r] (359/631)

[This Docun?ent is the Property of His Britan me Majesty's Gc^mmeiiil
EASTERN DEPARTMENl
SECRET SERIES.
* > — f '
March 20. j
S ection 1,
[10004] No. 1.
Sir (i. Lowthcr to Sir Edward Grey. — [Received March 20.)
(No, 157.)
Sir, Per a, March 11, 1911.
WITH reference to my despatch No. 154 oi the 10th instant, 1 have the honour to
transmit herewith translation of a leading article from the " Tanin " of to-day's date,
which discusses the relations between Turkey, Germany, and Great Britain in a
somewhat more moderate tone than has recently been the case.
I have, &c.
GERARD LOWTHER.
Enclosure in No. 1.
Extract from the u Tanin " of March 11, 1911.
(Translation.)
Turkey, England, and Germany.
IT seems likely that the article in which the semi-official German paper, the
" Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, 1 ' says that, as Turkey and the Bagdad Railway
Company are bound by a contract neither of the parties can discuss the subject with
a third party on its own initiative, will give rise to discussion, and the " Times 1
article which we reproduce to-day may be taken as the preliminary.
It is natural that the Ottomans, as the most interested party, should watch this
discussion with great attention. We admit that it is rather strange that a matter
affecting our country should be the subject of discussion and dispute between two
foreign Governments. Yet we must be thankful for the blessings conferred on us by
the constitutional regime, which enables us to interfere as much as we do in the
matter and to raise our voices on the subject; for under the old regime, this matter,
like all those affecting Turkey's very life, would have been arranged without our
knowledge, and doubtless to our disadvantage. The existence of an Ottoman Govern
ment conscious of its interests and rights and resolved to defend them naturally directs
the discussion into another channel.
It can never be a cause of satisfaction to us that the Bagdad Railway question
should cause rivalry and hostility between England and Germany. Without attributing
that fact to any lofty feeling of humanity or desire for peace, we can say that we
deprecate dissension between these two Powers because we should doubtless be the
greatest sufferers. Turkey's duty is therefore to prevent the shock of^ contact between
two opposing interests in the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. , and that is why we maintained that we
ought to come to an understanding with England and considered this discussion to be
advantageous. • i r> •
It is satisfactory to the statesmen of neither country, we believe, that a 1 ersian
Gulf question which is opposed to the friendly relations existing between England and
Turkey should always exist in a vague and threatening form. Whenever Irak is
referred to a number of embarrassing questions come up. Why should we not
consider these doubtful joints in friendly discussion and try to find some means of
removing them ? When we hear England talk about English commercial interests and
rights in the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. we are naturally displeased and anxious, not knowing clearly
what the material and real form of these interests is or will be. It was clearly necessary
to have an exchange of views in order to avoid even greater misunderstandings. ^
The statements in the German paper referred to above contain nothing that would
prevent an Anglo-Turkish discussion of the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. questions, and we do not
think the German Minister for Foreign Affairs has such an idea. We make this
explanation because the " Times " shows overmuch suspicion. Nevertheless, it _ must
be admitted that just as it is right and legitimate for England and Turkey to discuss
[1932 w—1]