File 757/1909 'Persian Gulf:- Turkey and Turkish aggression (Occupation of Zakhnuniyeh Island. Attitude in piracy cases. Mudirs at Zubara, Odaid and Wakra) British Relations with Turkey in Persian Gulf' [‎243r] (490/495)

I
S Foreign Office,
No. 173, May 11,
1SS3.
Sir A. Saudison to
Sir W. White,
July 4, 18^9.
To Sublime 'Porte,
;-*&/« verbale,
I'iS, l^ecem-
ber 9, 1890.
J o d’tto, No 28,
?-2. 1891.
Sublime Porte,
No. 55, July 4,
■ 1891.
To Sublime Porte,
No. 76, August 26,
1891.
weight and influence was a counterpoise to the constant pressure and intrigue of that
Power whose object it is to persuade both Sovereign and his Ministers that the interest
and salvation of Turkey lies in a close and cordial understanding with them.
Besides these few remarks which I have made bold to lay before your Lordship, 1
beg leave to say that I find some difficulty in clearly understanding the policy propose
by the Government of India in regard to El Odeid. On the one hand, it is suggested
that our warning to the Porte should he based on the fact that we consider El Odeid a£
an appanage of the Chief of Abu Dhabi, an independent Ruler with whom we have
Treaty relations—that is to say, that we consider El Odeid as independent of the Chief
of Katr; while, on the other hand, we appear to be contemplating the contingency of
counteracting Turkish designs in El Katr by countenancing the absorption of El Odeid
by Ahmed-bin-Thani.
I have, &c.
(Signed) N. R. O’CONOR.
Inclosure in No. 1.
Memorandum by Mr. Blech.
THE Turks claim the Katr coast as part of the Nejd, to which in 1871 they sent
a military expedition to assimilate it to the other provinces of the Empire. We have
never admitted the validity of this claim, and we have treated misbehaviour on the
part of the local Chiefs without much regard to Turkish pretensions, though the Turks
have, at the invitation or with the connivance of those Chiefs, established small
militavy posts at Ojeir, Zobara, and El Bidaa. It does not appear that any remon
strance was addressed to the Turkish Government against the establishment of the post
at El Bidaa, the date of which is not mentioned, hut to which Colonel Talbot alludes
in his No. 76 of the 7th May, 1893, as having existed, though unrecognized, for twenty
years or so.
In 1881 British naval officers were instructed not to allow themselves for the future
to he too much hampered by the 3-mile limit in pursuing and capturing pirates,
especially as the Turkish authority on the coast is at many points of a very shadowy
description. The Porte was informed that as our remonstrances against unrestrained
piracy in Turkish waters had produced no result, the British naval officers in the
Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. would be authorized, when necessary, to take such measures as they may
think fit for the protection of British commerce without reference to the claims of the
Sultan to territorial jurisdiction in those waters.
In reply to a complaint respecting the action of British Consular authorities in
regard to the Chief of El Bidaa, Lord Granville stated to the Turkish Ambassador on
the 7th May, 1883 : “ I beg leave to remind your Excellency that the claim of the
Porte to rights of sovereignty over the Katr coast has never been admitted by Her
Majesty’s Government.”
In 1889 Her Majesty’s Embassy represented to the then Grand Vizier the various
considerations which made it very desirable for the Turkish Government not to extend
its military action south of Katif. Whether in respect of these considerations or for
other reasons the Turks apparently took no action.
Under instructions from Her Majesty’s Government, Her Majesty’s Embassy
asked the Sublime Porte to inform it as to the truth of a report which had reached
Her Majesty’s Government, to the effect that the Imperial Ottoman Government
intend to establish posts at Zobara and Odeid on the Katr coast, and that Mudirs have
been appointed thereto.
No reply having been received, a further inquiry is made. Her Majesty’s
Government coidd not acquiesce in the occupation by Turkey ol a port which is
regarded by them as a dependency of Ahou Dthabi, the Chief of which is one of the
parties to the Maritime Truce.
Zohara and Odeid are within the Vilayet of Bussorah, and have long since been
administered by Kaimakams and Mudirs. The Imperial Government has no
knowledge of the Maritime Truce, and cannot recognize it.
Transmits a copy of the Maritime Truce, signed by the Chiefs of Raz-ul-Khaima,
Abou Hthabi, Debay, Ejman, and Umalgawin. Odeid being a dependency of Abou
Dthabi, the Chief of which is a party to the Maritime Truce, Her Majesty’s Govern
ment cannot acquiesce in a Turkish occupation of that port.