'File 19/191 I (C 27) Bahrain, Persian Claim To' [‎9r] (26/478)

■
11
claims. But the resulting investigation would show the weakness of our own position
in Bahrein, based, as it is, upon the continued content of the sheikh. Our treaties
give us no right to our present domination, a point mentioned by Sheikh Isa in his
petition to Government, and which would certainly come out before an international
tribunal. All that we could prove would be the independence of Bahrein and our
protection based on custom and consent, but should Sheikh Hamad desire it, or should
Sheikh Isa intervene, any international tribunal would limit our powers of action
in the islands. Except so far as dependent upon the goodwill of the sheikh our past
protection would give us internationally no ground for maintaining our position in
the future.
70. Indeed, this point we ourselves have brought out in communication to the
Sublime Porte, which we now desire to repeat to Ibn Saud. ( Vide paragraph 5 of
Foreign Office letter, dated Foreign Office, the 7th July, 1927, to the Under-Secretary
of State for India, forwarded to me under vour No. 402-N. dated the 17th August,
1927.)
In that communication we stated that as regards Bahrein and the trucial chiefs
of Oman, British rights in the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. relied not merely on the agreements
concluded and transmitted at that time to the Ottoman Government, but on the
custom, consent, and long-established relations between the local chiefs and the
Government of India.
71. Persia is not then the real danger except in so far as she would expose the
weakness of our position.
The future danger to our policy lies in the growth of the Wahabi power and its
extension to the Arab littoral of the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. .
72. En this reference I will again quote from Sir Percy Cox's remarks at the
Central Asian Society on the 27th October last, which I quoted in a previous
despatch.
He said, with regard to Ibn Saud :—
" I have discussed his ambitions with him many times. It may be of
interest if I tell you briefly what they are. Practically, he thinks that he is
justified in principle in regaining any territory that his forefathers had a
century ago, whether as territory or as a sphere of influence. Oman was in their
sphere of influence "
" In my time, before the war, we had intimate relations with Ibn Saud;
we had a treaty with him under which we paid him a subsidy, and it was part
of the agreement that he should not attack or molest any friends of ours or any
chiefs who were in treaty relations with us ... . but he quite realised we
could not go on paying this for ever. But what he felt was this : Up to now I
have been under specific obligation not to annoy the British Government by
any policy that I pursue .... but now they have felt obliged to stop any
payment to me, I think I am entitled to pursue my own policy and work out my
destiny as I think best. He is now doing that. Up to now he has been
extraordinarily correct and statesmanlike in all that he has done. We have
never been able to put him in the wrong I have little doubt that in the
course of time he will seek to extend his authority over the interior of Oman."
73. The subject on which Sir Percy Cox was speaking was Oman, but if Oman
was under Wahabi influence, Bahrein was under Wahabi control, and it would be
difficult to say in which place our position was strongest or more important.
74. Here we have from the fountain head a statement of Ibn Sand's projects
on the shores of Arabia. Let us see how his action bears out Sir Percy Cox's
statements.
In 1916, as Sir Percy Cox states, we had a treaty with Ibn Saud.
In 1927 we attempted to include a section in the treaty with the following
wording;—
" His Majesty the King of the Hejaz and Sultan of Nejd and its
Dependencies undertakes, as bis fathers did before him, to refrain from all
aggression or interference with the territories of Koweit, Bahrein, and of the
Sheikhs of Katar and the Oman coast, who are under the protection of the
Government of His Britannic Majesty, and who have treaty relations with the
said Government."
With the exception that no reference is made to the question of determining the
limits of the territories mentioned, this article repeats the provisions of article 6 of
the treaty, which we had already made with him in 1916.
[16910] c 2