"الملف 73/7 I (D 19) وضع الكويت، سكة حديد بغداد، والمفاوضات الأنجلو تركية في ١٩١١" [ظ‎‎٥‎٩] (٦٣١/١٣٣)

2
which have become more or less privileged; and their exceptional position has never
meant the lapse of Ottoman sovereign rights. i t i * v n
In examining the nature of th< relation between Koweit and the Turkish Govern
ment the "Times" quotes the evidence of certain officers in the service of tne Indian
Government. This does not appear to us quite in accordance with legal methods. _ tor
since Endand is the plaintiff, it is scarcely right that the witnesses ior the plaintiff
should be English. Nevertheless, their statements all confirm the relation between
Koweit and Turkey, and not one of them contains anything to prove that England has
any rights over Koweit; they speak of allowances made to the Sheikli of Koweit and
of the duties laid upon him. Are not these all proofs of the existence of Ottoman
sovereign rights ?
While mentioning these proofs the " Times claims that not one of them shows
that tribute has ever been paid by the Sheikh of Koweit to the Ottoman Government.
Now, although we have questioned the right of supporting an English claim by English
witnesses, we have such confidence in English sincerity and uprightness that we will
call an English witness to establish our rights. We do not doubt that this witness will
be accepted with confidence by the " Times," for it is Lord Ourzon, late Governor-
General of India, and a man famed for his knowledge of the Persian Gulf.
Fifteen years ago. Lord Curzon wrote a book entitled " Persia and the Persian
Gulf" We will content ourselves with quoting some details about Koweit from
pp. 462 and 463 of the second volume.
Lord Curzon says that Ujair Harbour may be taken as the southern boundary of
the territory on the El Katif coast of Turkey, and that northwards from that point the
influence and sovereignty of the Ottoman Government runs and is established without
dispute as far as Fao.
As it is possible that we misconstrue this passage, we reproduce it here in the
original ;—
" Northwards from that place the Ottoman dominion is established without dispute-
as far as Fao."
On the question of payment of tribute, to which the " Times " attaches so much
importance, Lord Curzon gives evidence in favour of Turkey, he says
" * 1S ? 0 Z consi( J ered as dependent on the villayet of Bussorah, and pays its
share of tribute to Bussorah."
I his passage also we reproduce in English ;
tribuW' 0 ^ n0W n0minaIly formS P art of the vma y et of Bussorah, to which it pays
1820-21 the^ritish offk'iaM a p lttl ? ear . u ^.'. us ,,oolc Lord Curzon admits that in
Ottoman territory, for if Koweit h-id nnt I 'i i S P roves Koweit to be
would be no meaning in the action of the Biltkb 0 " fli ^ 0 ^® an te ™tory there
Gove^t in g™* d the 0 «—
a crushing answer to 0n tlUS POiut ' f " 0r 1,01(1 Cur 2on's words afford
advantage of the'weaknel'SdTm^tenTO of'thene th - S Gov , eniment . taking
influence in the Persian Gulf, and has t, e,l ^ w T Ked to extend its
protection. Diplomatic correspondence took il" ' i"' ^ 1 0 ' Koweit under its
England and ended, if we remember ri^ht in mi 0 " The a " <1
always did, to settle the question temnorarii J i Hi • old re ^ lne Preferred, as it
the old rdgime clearly accepted or seemed t ' e'e is not one of the points which
the "Times " about'not tei^ lch [he claim in
England wanted of Turkey in 1901 was not the t ^ Perswn Gulf : ^ what
lespect the status quo, and England nndcrto, of troops to Koweit and to
protectorate over Koweit. Finallv the OH r"" 0CCU P>' Koweit or establish a
the British official as consul, and gave hlm^o^yp . Veiur ! lellt not even
.....»«.