"الملف 73/7 I (D 19) وضع الكويت، سكة حديد بغداد، والمفاوضات الأنجلو تركية في ١٩١١" [و‎‎٢‎٠] (٦٣١/٥٧)

TURKEY AND KOWETT.
: fgp
the claim of suzerainty.
(from a correspondent.)
Considerable misconception appears to prevail
regarding tfle exacfc nature of the Turkish claims
Oi suzerainty over the port and territories of the
Sheikh of Koweit, in the Persian Gulf. In
his articles in the Tctnin Ismail Hakki Bey
lias declared that Koweit is officially a Turkish
kaza (canton). Hussein Djahid Bey has
stated in an article in the Tanin, quoted in The
Times of January 26, that " lor us Koweit is
Ottoman territory." These statements are in
need of correction. The purpose of this article
is to show that the Sheikh of Koweit is an inde
pendent ruler, that the suzerainty of Turkey
does not extend to Koweit territory, and that
(ireat Britain possesses a preferential position
a*^ Koweit which no other Power, not even
i urkey, can impair. The facts set forth are
based partly upon careful research and partly
upon investigations on ths spot.
Thid Stemrich Mission.
Early in 1900 a German mission arrived over-
land at Koweit. It was headed by Herr Stem-
rich, then Consul-GeneraI at Constantinople,
and afterwards Minister at Teheran, who now
occupies a prominent position in the German
ioreign Office. The object of his visit to
Koweit was to obtain from Sheikh Mubarak a
concession for a terminus for the Baghdad
ilailway upon the shores of Koweit Har
bour. He asked for a site at Bas Kathama,
at the head of the bay, and for a, lease of 20
square miles of territory around it. It is n'ot
i surprising that the request was flatly re
fused. Mubarak would probably have re
jected the Oei\a overtures in any case,
because lie kne\y- the character of German
relations with Turks, with whom he was on
bad term-!. I '5, ^there was another circum
stance which made refusal imperative.
Almost the first administrative act per
formed by Lord Curzon' after his arrival in
India as \ ieeroy had been to instruct Colonel
Meade, then British Keskient in the Persian
Gulf, to conclude an agreement with Mubarak,
the nature of which certainly precluded the i
cession of any portion of his territory to any
foreign Power. That agreement was signed by
Colonel Meade and Mubarak at Koweit on
January 23, 1899. The Sheikh received certain
definite considerations in return for his acquies- j
cence. The precise terms of the agreement
have never been made public, though its exist-1
ence is now generally known. They are, how- j
ever, sufficiently indicated by Mr. Balfour's i
reference in the House of Commons on April S,
1903, to the territories of a Sheikh whom we
have under our special protection, and with
whom wo have special treaties " ; and by the
statement of The Times, on January 11, 1904,
that Mubarak had contracted "special treaty
relations which placed his rights and interests
under the a?gis of Great Britain." In a foot
note in his published version of his Romanes
lecture on " Frontiers," Lord Curzon states
-that the agreement of the Indian Government
with the Sheikh of Koweit " was tantamount
to an assertion of protectorate, although . . .
by a strange anomaly, the protectorate of
Turkey was never formally denied."
Germany has been, in effect, warned off, and
there has been no further attempt to obtain
preferential advantages at Koweit. I believe
1 am nevertheless justified in saying that
Mubarak would like to see the terminus at
Koweit, if he could be assured of his own inde- j
pendence and of the continuance of British
protection.
The Relations with TrsKEY.^oS^V
During Lord Curzon's Viceroyalty TitrkSy ,
repeatedly endeavoured to obtain possession'
of Koweit, over which she claimed a vague
sort of suzerainty. The Turks have long
sought to make fresh conquests in the Gulf,
and so far back as the forties tried to secure
the allegiance of Bahrein. There is reason to
suppose, however, that their eagerness to seize j
Koweit during the early years of Lord Curzon's
rule in India was due to the belief that the
harbour was the only possible terminus for the
Baghdad Railway.
Reams have been written about the basis
of the Turkish claims to Koweit. The very
origin of the Arabs of Koweit is disputed.
Colonel Polly, a former Resident in the Persian
Gulf, declared that they came from Um Kasr,
at the head of the Khor Abdullah, 250 years
ago ; but the Bombay Government Records,
and the memoirs of Midhat Pasha, alike state
that they came from Nedjd, and the latter
theory is probably correct. The statements
in the Bombay records about their relations
with tho Turks are rather contradictory. It
is fairly clear that throughout the 18th century
the Sheikhs of Koweit were entirely independent.
In 1829 Captain Brucks, of the Indian Navy,
wrote that the Sheikh " acknowledged the
authority of the Porte," and p aid a tribute of
<10 bags of rice and 40(; frazd-. of dates annually,
fn"IS^-TEreutenant K^mbafi'"irepoftcd that for
20 years Koweit had been " considered " to be
" closely connected" with the Pashalik of
Baghdad. The Koweit vessels flew the Turkish
flag, and the Sheikh received annually 200 ;
karahs of date s (equivalent to 4,000 crowns) ( ,
m return lor wTnclV he was 756und to pro tect
Bas ra f rom foreign aggression." There is not
mucE suggestion of suzeruihty or tribute j
in this statement. About the same time
Lieutenant Kernball made another report I
in which he said that the inhabitants of Koweit
" acknowledge a nominal dependence to the j
Turkish Government." In 1853 Lieutenant
Disbrowe stated that the Sheikh had " placed
himself under the guardianship of the Porte."
Colonel Felly, who visited Koweit in 1863 i
and 1865, stated that the Sheikh received ;
annually " a complimentary present of dates i
from Basra, in token of suzerainty and for
the supposed protection of the mouths of the
Basra ' River." There is again very little |
implication of tribute in this assertion. Pal-
grave, not a very trustworthy witness, as he |
never went to Koweit, wrote in 1863 that the
Sheikh had " refused the demands of tribute |
and submission " made by the Vali of Baghdad, i
Midhat Pasha, who was Vaii of Baghdad in
1869-70, states, in the memoirs edited by his
son, that the people of Koweit had success
fully resisted all attempts to bring them within
Turkish jurisdiction, and that they had main- i
tained their " practical independence." He ]
claims to have added their territory to the-
Vilayet of Baghdad with their consent, but as
he makes a similar but quite illusory statement
about Bahrein, the allegation that he included
Koweit witliin tho dominions of the Sultan
hardly commands acceptance.
Tcbkish Suzerainty a Fiction.
Mv own view, after examining much more
evidence than is here recorded, is that the
suzerainty of the Sultan over Koweit was neve;
more than a " polite fiction." Midhat Pasha's
admission probably describes the situation tha
existed all 'last century. Rulers who were abl.
to protect a Turkish city in return for paymen
were not likely to brook any serious exercis-
of authority by the distant potentate of Con
stantinople : but they doubtless tendered th
Sultan that ill-defined though tangible respec
which most Musulman magnates proffer t
one who, whether he be Khalifa or not, is gtjj
the greatest Monarch in Islam.
Mubarak's own attitude is not difficult t.
understand. He wishes to preserve his owi
independence, and to enjoy the protection o
British warships in case of need; but h
knows the mutability of human affairs, am
prefers to keep on good terms with his Turk is]
neighbours so far as is possible. He is wel
aware that differences with the Sultan do, hin
liQiTrn in tlio eyes of Musu Ixntiris, tind w lien
came into possession of Koweit in 1896 he evei
tried by distributing bribes at Constantmopk
to buy the recognition of Abdul H amid. lit
has the best of reasons for wishing to preserve