"الملف 73/7 II (D 22) وضع الكويت - سكة حديد بغداد، والمفاوضات الأنجلو تركية" [و‎‎١‎١‎٦] (٥٤٠/٢٣٧)

of delegates from the India Office, Board of Trade, and Foreign Office, to discuss!
ADrU^ewK'^rt^R 1 "^ 0 ^ 0 ^ the Turkish communicated on the 15th
April, respecting the Baghdad Railway and cognate questions.
Ma j est y> ® over nment can most expediently adopt
with regard to the distribution of capital in the Baghdad-Bussorah line is a matter
cerned PrmC 7 conslderatlon of tlle three departments con-
^ Another point, which concerns the India Office and the Foreign Office is the
attitude of His Majesty s Government in respect of the peninsula of El Katr' In a
paTsa^'occurs — Apri1 ' by ^ A ' Hirtzel and Mr - Parker following
iustifv^i^M^/ 0 ' H p tllat there '? nothing in the Turkish argument that would
'I ; Hls Ma ] e sty s Government in abandoning one iota of the claims advanced
on 1 IS a t f U n u July . 1911 ' seem ^ that an important object in embarking
on a settlement of Gulf questions was to eliminate the Turks from the peninsula."
• ^ re ? 0 g nis f the cogency of this conclusion, which appears likelv to
ment'of India VleWS resident in the Persian Gulf and the Govern-
But he is, none the less, not fully convinced that the desires of the Turkish Go-
ln . re f t0 f 1 Katr on ac count of the British interests involved
be negatived ; he is not persuaded that a consolidation of Turkish influence in El
Katr, if strictly defined, is inconsistent with the maintenance of British interests
direct or indirect; and he is disposed to think that there are important and desirabla
compensations m other quarters which might be procurable for concessions to
Turkey here, and that such compensations cannot otherwise be secured.
As the Secretary of State for India is aware, the Turkish and Persian Govern
ments signed a protocol m December 1911 agreeing in certain +
refer the Turco-Persian frontier dispute to The Hague Tribunal. This Agreement
was concluded under the auspices of the British and Russian GovernmeX
It appears to be generally held that, if the dispute is referred to this tribunal
the frontier adjudicated to Turkey m the Mohammerah region is likely to be more
favourable to her than the frontier as locally observed and conseouentlv W
favourable to the Sheikh of Mohammerah. y ss
It would, in view of the attitude of Bis Majesty's Government durine the
Turco-Persian negotiat.ons o 1911, be difficult for His Majesty's Government to
if™ t0 , a M , e by an a 1 , rbltral . awar d ; and, if that award wire LejudlcTto the
Sheikh of Mohammerah, as indeed it might be even to the P Xnt S i •
advanced by Dervish Pasha on behalf of Turkey in 1850, the resulting situation
would be one of great perplexity and difficulty. g sltuatlou
-J 1 ™ 11 ^ tlie micfci-tainty of the case Sir E. Grey is disposed to think that everv
effort should be made to reach an agreement on the Mohammerah boundary oues^
tion by direct negotiation with Turkey ; but he is not hopeful of the i^np
negotiation unless His Majesty's Government can offer to Turkey a substantial
gmd pro ? «o elsewhere, and, m his opinion, it might possibly be found in El Katr
British interests in the peninsula appear to consist principally in— j
(a.) The maintenance of the grazing rights of the Sheikh of Bahrein.
(6.) The suppression of the arms traffic.
(c.) The protection of the pearl industry.
(d.y The exclusion of Turkish influence from trucial territory.
Sir E. Grey as at present advised, can perceive no conclusive reason why tho
maintenance of these interests should be incompatible with the conBolKktion of
tlie Turkish position ; and, if objections do exist, their importance should he con
inconvenience 01 an adverse
C248FD 61