File 2764/1904 Pt 4 'Baghdad Railway: Anglo-Turkish negotiations; proposals of Turkish Govt; status of Kowait' [‎124v] (253/674)

should be emphasised, and that the continuation to Koweit should be characterised as
a branch line in the further negotiations with Turkey.
(f.) Proposed construction and control of the port at Bussorah by the new railway
company in the interests of the unrestricted commerce of all nations.
Turkey ignores, in her reply, the question of the construction and control of the
terminal port at Bussorah. .
The Turkish delegates did, however, intimate to ns verbally that turkey would
agree to the construction of the port at Bussorah by the new company. They did
m
+ 1
not mention control; and probably such measures as police control would have to
remain, as at present, in Turkish hands. But it is desirable that control of the port
should be entrusted to the proposed riverain commission.
. , , *JlA
2.—Political and Territorial Questions.
(See map annexed.)
(a.) El Katr.
Here there is complete divergency between the Turkish and the British point
of view. j
The Turkish Government have maintained a post at El Bidaa for 40 years; and
the Turkish Delegates have emphasised the difficulty there would be in reconciling
parliamentary opinion to the abandonment of territory wnich Turkey has never formally
renounced; and they represented that such a surrender would be particularly difficult to
justify at a time when public opinion is smarting under the loss of Tripoli. They there
fore urged that British interests might be reconciled with a consolidation of Turkish
dominion in El Katr; but from this view the British Resident in the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. and
the Government of India emphatically dissent.
It appears to us that there is nothing in the Turkish agreement that would justify
His Majesty’s Government in abandoning one iota of the claims advanced in the memo
randum of July 1911, seeing that an important object, in embarking on a settlement of
Gulf questions was to eliminate the Turks from the peninsula.
We consider that His Majesty’s Government should protest energetically against
the Turkish attempt to whittle away the assurances (see Annexe I) given by the
Turkish Minister for Foreign Affairs to Her Majesty’s Ambassador at Constantinople,
and repeatedly given, to the effect that Turkey did not entertain any intention of
obtaining the supremacy over Bahrein, Muscat, and the independent tribes on the coast
of the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. ; though Turkey did (in the person of Midhat Pasha An Ottoman title used after the names of certain provincial governors, high-ranking officials and military commanders. ) argue that
there were no independent tribes in Nedjd.
(b.) Bahrein.
The Turkish reply on this point is, we think, fairly satisfactory. We understood
from the Turkish delegates that Turkey is prepared to agree to Bahreinis having
British Consular protection in Turkey, hut not rights under the Capitulations, and
this appears a reasonable attitude.
(c). Zakhnuniyeh Island.
According to the Turkish delegates this isle is connected at low tide with the
mainland. It is however opposite a portion of the mainland which is south of Ojeir, the
most southerly limit to which His Majesty’s Government have ever recognised Turkish
influence, and this attempt to establish themselves on the island seems to date only
from 1909.
(d.) Koweit.
The Turkish reply evades a direct answer to much that was written in the British
memorandum of July 1911.
We consider that no useful purpose would be served by entering into a controversy
as to past history, and that it would be expedient to reply to the Turkish Government
that, while His Majesty’s Government cannot accept or admit the justice of the
Turkish contentions, they would be glad to learn whether the Turkish Government are
c<
ii
t