ملف رقم ١٦٠ لسنة ١٩٠٣ "الخليج الفارسي: قطر؛ تعيين مديرين أتراك؛ مسألة معاهدة الحماية مع قطر" [و‎‎٩] (٨٦٠/٢٢)

5
|
-
I
“ His Majesty’s Government), should he neutralised by the establishment
“ forthwith of a Koweiti post, with the countenance of His Majesty’s Govern-
“ ment, on Warba Island (immediately north of Bubiyan), or, if that should
“ prove undesirable, on the northern shores of Bubiyan Island. If practi-
“ cable we would even recommend the establishment of posts on both islands.
We desire to emphasise the importance which we attach to the effective
“ assertion of the Sheikh’s territorial claims to Bubiyan.” The Foreign
Oilice accepted these conclusions (12th November 1907, 3903/07), and local
enquiries were instituted as to the basis of the Sheikh’s claims to Warba. It
appeared, that these were not very strong, historically ; but in view of the
fact that it is separated only by a narrow channel from Bubiyan, it might
fairly be argued on geographical grounds that the ownership of Warba
followed from that of Bubiyan. The Government of India reported in
September 1908 that the Sheikh was not at the time anxious to move in the
matter of his claims to the latter, and His Majesty’s Government therefore
decided to take no action (Secret Despatch No. 19, 30th October 1908), a
decision which, as has already been mentioned, was reaffirmed in April last
(Secret Despatch No. 9, 8th April 1910).
To Um Easr the Sheikh’s claim appears to be much more shadowy
than to Bubiyan. There is an old fort there, which is said to have been, built by
his grandfather, but in 1904 it was uninhabited. On the other hand the
Turks were reported to have little claim beyond that of actual occupation.
The importance of these places is indicated by the following passage
from the Government of India’s letter of 4th February 1904 : “ With the
“ shores of the mainland and of Bubiyan Island in the possession of a single
Power, the anchorages below Um Kasr and at Warba Island can at any
“ time be converted into an impregnable harbour.”
Jinnah has not hitherto figured in the correspondence, but it is an island
lying alongside of the Island of Musallamiya, which is claimed by the Sheikh
of Koweit. The Sheikh protested against the landing of Turkish troops on
the latter island in 1902. It may be explained that the southern limits of his
territory have never been defined, but the Government of India were of
opinion that the Sheikh’s claim to Musallamiya could not be maintained, and
that the island was clearly within the Turkish sphere of influence. (Telegram
10 th May 1902.)
Of the other places mentioned as occupied by Turkish ^troops,
El Bidaa and Zakhnuniyeh are south of the region known as El Katif, in
wdiich His Majesty’s Government have recognised continuous Turkish
influence. As will have been seen from paragraph 155 of the Defence Com
mittee’s Proceedings, the southernmost point of that influence is Ujair.
South of Ujair and on the El Katr Peninsula, His Majesty’s Government
have declined to recognise Turkish sovereignty, but the Turks established a
garrison at El Bidaa in 1872 and we have acquiesced in it.
Zakhnuniyeh is 10 miles south of Ujair, and is claimed by the Sheikh
of Bahrein. The Turks ran up their flag there m March 1909 and arianged to
keep a guard there. The Government of India recommended that a protest
should be made at Constantinople, and that the Sheikh of Bahrein should be
allowed to fly his flag on the island (telegram of 23rd May 1909). Ihe
protest w T as made and the Ambassador was informed in September that the
guard had been withdrawn at the beginning of June. In these circumstances
it was decided to drop the question of the Bahrein flag, the policy of His
Majesty’s Government being to avoid disturbance of the status quo (telegram
to Viceroy 13th October 1909) In November the Political Agent, Bahrein,
reported that there were no Turkish soldiers on the island, but by April 1910
they had reappeared, and the Turkish flag was again being flown. Ihe
Ambassador again protested, but received only evasive replies (telegiam o
16th August 1910). The subject was therefore included in Sir E. Grey's
despatch of 17th October, to which reference has already been made, and
the Ambassador was instructed “ to request that orders may be issued for t e
immediate and permanent withdrawal oi the garrison. In a telegram dated
17th October 1910 Sir G. Eowther reported that the loite had instructed t le
Mali of Basra that when the gendarmes left the island at the end of the
fishing season they were not to return except under oiders fiom Constanti
nople ; and on 14th November he reported that the gendarmes had deseited.