"الملف 73/7 I (D 19) وضع الكويت، سكة حديد بغداد، والمفاوضات الأنجلو تركية في ١٩١١" [ظ‎‎٣‎٥] (٦٣١/٨٨)

' ' 11 ill 11 ulllllil i^ft^
4
be made on these points the balance will, of course, be a hundred times
more favourable to Turkey. . e ,
But Turkey has also moral rights, rights which it would be suicide for her
to "ire up. England is not in a position to invoke such a right. Ou the
contrary, the feeling of the local population cannot be reconciled with the idea
of English sovereignty. Yet the Times wants to arn re at a solution of the
question by the legal method. The Sheikhs of Mohammorah and Koweit are
supposed to he the allies of England. We do not know on what principle of
international law such alliances are based. Neither of these sheikhs is indepen-
dent; they have not even complete internal independence. How, then, can
it be imagined that they possess independence in foreign affairs ?
The Times claims that my letters were mistaken on two points. In
the first place, it says that England has striven to prevent the smuggling of
arms, and in that way has served Turkey. But I do not find this refutation
very strong, for since all the tribes are armed with English weapons, the
prevention cannot have been very effective. If anything is certain, it is that
hundreds of thousands of rifles came from English factories a fact which is
due to the doubtful position of Koweit. If the Sheikh of Koweit is indepen
dent enough to form an alliance, he must have a responsible position, and in
that case his land ought not to be an arms depot. No one ought to deny that
if it serves as an arms depot, the countries that suffer have a right to dry up the
source of the trouble.
The other point on which the Times tries to refute me is this. It says
I have claimed that the English have stirred up the Sheikhs of Mohammerah
and Koweit, whereas the two sheikhs maintain that Turkey has stirred up the
other sheikhs to make raids on them and plunder them.
In the first place, I do not remember saying that the two sheikhs had been
stirred up against us by England : on the contrary, T maintained that thev
were abusing their doubtful political position. As to making raids and plun
dering, what of the raids on Sa'adoun Pasha and the Muntefik tribes ? Those
acquamted with Bedouin customs know that the Muntefik tribes will act, not
as the result of Ottoman agitation, but by way of retaliation and for revenge.
Knwrii !?n tl; \r,2 ,t0man | G(l i ernm - ent stirrin s up the tribes against those of
Koweit and Mohammerah, there is no such thing. Even if there were—to
oppose the impossible-how could it concern England? It is true the
Tmes says it does concern England, but it is evident that that'statement
n relation with either international law or the relations exMin" witb m
But the suggestion proves one thino-. +w n T ^i^iuns exisung witH us.
That ouch" m Ko J i e shdkhs are tale-bearers
on i-ho whnlp nf tt>o I?- . 1 * uCi: 18 on ty Two hours distant, and even
on the whole of Irak (Mesopotamia).
In this article we have pursued no end
relations of the two countries concerned.
ask for that to be admitted^we^eg thaW^n- 6 H t 0t 1 qili , te 80 . ^nuous as to
being ill-disposed towards England.^ ( uo ^ accused
but
If we
distant, and even
that of the mutual good
are wrong, we beg that we
of
(Translation).
Enclosure 2 in No. 1.
Extract from the Tanm o£ 25th January 1911,
Turkey and England,
Stte It P- I"";" » «.I. O. n. r.™.
mg with Eno-lanrl n m tne lamn on the nepps^Kr ' r ersian
friendly ^ that since we want
waverin 0, nnlIo , u ^ eat lowers, woon^bt tr • sincere and
and a sincere exchange oTfK U P our W and