'The Arms Traffic in the Persian Gulf' [‎39v] (21/62)

20
t q„„tv, of I it 9 0 N. The difficulty in regard to such
East African coast South - • Maiesty's Government,
an arrangement, from toe pomt ^ out the pro-
ky in the questioii^a admitt i n g system of international
visions of t ^ control which would be inconsistent
Viceroy's telegram of 2nd February ^ British political predominance at
1908 - 263/08 Mnskat. The views of the Government
nf India on this point were stated in the Viceroy's telegram of 2nd February
1008 Could «c not," thgy asked, ''before the Conference meets induce
•' France if not any other Powers having commercial treaties with Muskat,
" to agree to amendment of treaties and prohibition of the import ot arms as
"toelower most interested? We would meet the cost ot compensating
" Sultan, and in return for this might induce him, with conseul o I iance, to
" entrust customs management to us, or at any rate to appom a u is
" officer as Superintendent of Customs."
Failing an arrangement of this kind, it was recognised that the question
of the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. traffic might have to come before the Conference for lull
discussion, in which case it was held that the object of His Majesty s Govern
ment should be to minimise, as far as possible, the danger ot foreign
interference at Muskat. As regards the actual control of the tratiic at
Muskat, the Government of India considered that the important point was
to get the Sultan to agree to prohibit the importation of arms and ammu
nition. " His consent can be procured when international agreement proposed
" is concluded, but abolition of traffic would involve heavy loss of income
" from customs duties, and, unless he were indemnified for this, he might
" be expected to obstruct passively measures for prevention of arms traffic.
" We would recommend that arrangements for compensation should be
" entrusted to us, as we and Turkey and Persia are main, if not only,
" sufferers from Muskat trade. Payment of subsidy by Powers would be
" calamitous, and would inevitably lead to serious disturbance of status quo.
" Sultan might perhaps be induced to appoint British officer as superin-
" tendent of his customs, in order to ensure effective prohibition of
import by thorough customs examination. We are ascertaining what
" sum would be a fair indemnity for Sultan's loss of revenue. Political
" Agent, Muskat, estimates fair indemnity at 12,000Z. a year. :: - Political
" Resident in Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. thinks that it may be less. 11
In a further telegram, dated the 13th February 1908, the Government of
India reported a recommendation by Major Cox that a suitable- compensation
to the Sultan for the loss of income entailed by the prohibition of the arms
traffic would be to double the subsidy (5,7(iOZ. per annum) he already received
from Indian revenues,! and to raise it gradually, as might be necessary, to
15,000L per annum.
35. As a matter of fact no progress was made at Brussels with the
Brussels Conference: Negotiations -i Vono 01ll(ireil ^ e
with France. e ^th April 1 JOS. On the 2nd
. • ^ a y 190S the Italian delegate, Count
Bonin, submitted a proposal on behalf of his Cgovernment to extend the
• + n 1 / l statement as to the value of the arms and ammunition imported
into Muskat and of the Customs revenue from these imports.
t Hie circumstance in which a subsidy of 5,760i. per annum was granted to the Sultan ot
Muskat were as follows :-On the death ot Sultan Saiyid Said in 1856 a dispute arose between
his two somas to the possession of Muskat and Zanzibar, which had hiVrto been uS
under the same inler. the question was referred to the Viceroy of India, who decided that the
and manifest his friendship towards the British Goverament " y e,,g4 « eme,l,to