Coll 5/11 ‘Air Route to India: Arab Coast Route – Emergency Landing Ground at Qatar’ [‎170r] (339/345)

unfortunately prove not to be the case {cp. para. 39 of Memorandum on Henjam
on page Q). The incident, and its reactions on the Trucial Coast A name used by Britain from the nineteenth century to 1971 to refer to the present-day United Arab Emirates. , on which,
as the Government of India remarked, “anti-Persian feeling is always a
matter of concern to us, and any anti-Persian ebullition might lead to
serious embarrassment,”* illustrate, in any event, the difficulty of the
situation to which action, however justified, by Persia may give rise, where
^the Trucial Arabs are concerned.
20. The Tamb incident is dealt with in paras. 33 and 34 of the
Memorandum on the Status of Tamb, &c., on p. ™. It will be seen that it
was with great difficulty that the Sheikhs affected by the Persian arrest of
the dhow A term adopted by British officials to refer to local sailing vessels in the western Indian Ocean. in question were restrained from undertaking reprisals against
Persia; that the Persian claim to the islands of Tamb and Abu Musa, which
have been recognised by His Majesty’s Government as Trucial territories,
remains to be disposed of, and that the question of compensation to the
Sheikhs and to the owner of the dhow A term adopted by British officials to refer to local sailing vessels in the western Indian Ocean. and his passengers is still unsettled.
Persia and the independence of the Trucial Chiefs.
21. The newspaper Habl-ul-Matin, which is understood to derive
inspiration from the highest quarters, so long ago as November 1927
included in a list of Persian desiderata the “ renewal of the Protectorate of
Persia over Muscat and other small Sheikhs of the coast of Oman.” The
first official indication of a Persian claim of this nature arose, however, in
connection with the Tamb incident in August 1928, when the Acting Minister
of Foreign Affairs formally stated in a Note that “ the Persian Government
cannot recognise as independent and owner of the said islands ” the Sheikh
on whose behalf representations have been made by His Majesty’s Government,
and added that in consequence “ my Government cannot in any way approve
the attitude that the British Government have adopted on the pretext of
having treaties with the above-mentioned Sheikh, and cannot accept resulting
declaration which you make of protecting him.”
22. The Note left room for doubt as to whether the Persian challenge
of the independence of the Sheikh in question was directed to his status
as regards Tamb and Abu Musa, to which a claim is preferred by Persia,
or to his status as a Trucial Chief on the Arab Coast. The Charge d’Affaires
at Teheran was, however, instructed in reply to communicate officially the
text of the Exclusive Agreement of 1892 with all the Trucial Chiefs, and to
state that His Majesty’s Government entirely failed to understand the
Persian statement, and could not admit direct dealings between the Chiefs
and the Persian Government. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
added, “ You will realise that vis-d-vis of Foreign Powers, there is no
distinction for a purpose like the present between the Sheikh of Ras-al-
Khaima and the other Trucial Chiefs, and effect of Persian Note is to
challenge our right to protect any of them from external aggression . . .
the status of His Majesty’s Government on the Arabian coast is not open
to discussion, nor can they recognise any Persian claim on that side of
the Gulf.”
23. A Persian reply, holding to the views expressed in their earlier Note
and adding that “all agreements made with Trucial Chiefs which harm or
limit the rights and interests of Persia cannot be recognised as valid or
legally be cited as reason for measures against Persian Government ” has
since been received. The Political Resident A senior ranking political representative (equivalent to a Consul General) from the diplomatic corps of the Government of India or one of its subordinate provincial governments, in charge of a Political Residency. reports, moreover, that the
Governor of Bushire is alleged to have received instructions from Teheran
that Persia recognises no Arab rulers on the Arab coast of the Gulf, and
that all persons belonging to and arriving from Katr and the Trucial Coast A name used by Britain from the nineteenth century to 1971 to refer to the present-day United Arab Emirates. (as
from Muscat, Koweit and Bahrein) are to be considered Persian subjects and
Persian passports issued to them. It seems clear in the circumstances that
the possibility of a formal claim by Persia to suzerainty on the Trucial Coast A name used by Britain from the nineteenth century to 1971 to refer to the present-day United Arab Emirates. ,
whether based on her temporary control of portions of that coast in the early
eighteenth centuryt or on intrigues such as that unsuccessfully undertaken
by the Sartip on her behalf in 1887,J and subsequently repudiated by the
Persian Government, cannot be ignored. The seriousness of the issues to
which such a claim would give rise, if pressed, needs no emphasis.
* Tel. from Viceroy,
1206 S., June 18
1928, P. 3157.
Tel. from Pol.
Res. to S. of S.
for I., Sept. 25 1928,
P. 5227.
Teh. tel. to F.O.,
267, Aug. 31 1928.
P. 4770.
F.O. tel. 186,
Sept. 4 1928.
Teh. tel. 278,
Sept. 21 1928,
P. 5159.
Tel. from Pol. lies,
to S. of S. for !.,
T. 359, Sept. 17 1928,
P. 5093.
t Lor. i, 631.
X Lor. i, 737.