Coll 20/2 'Administration: Question of abdication of Sultan; Succession and Subsidies; Question of abrogation of treaties with USA and France' [‎375r] (749/757)

777
13
■r
of the Treaty of 1814, is an assurance to the Sultan, the value of which was
certainly fully appreciated by his predecessor, that he will not suffer the fate
of Zanzibar.
58. The United States of America, despite their Treaty of 1833 with
'Muscat, appear in practice to have no relations of any importance with
that State, their interests in which are now entrusted to His Majesty’s
Government.^ No question affecting these relations arose during the period
now under consideration. Here, however, as in the case of France, the
guarantees embodied in the Treaty of 1833 would make it impossible for the
Sultan to increase his customs duty (the most important method of raising
revenue at his disposal) without the prior concurrence of the United States
Government (cp. para. 37 above).
59. No question affecting the relations between the Sultan and the Dutch
Government arose during the period in question, and those relations appear,
as in the case of the United States Government, to be entirely unimportant.
Under the Commercial Declaration of 1877 Holland is, however, entitled to
most-favoured-nation treatment, and so would be affected by any modification
of the customs duties.
60. The possibility of the development of a German interest in Muscat
was of interest to His Majesty’s Government in the years before the war.
The present Sultan was informed in 1913 that His Majesty’s Government
could not agree to direct correspondence between him and the German
Consul, a practice contrary to the practice of Sultan Faisal, who had referred
to His Majesty’s Government matters affecting Powers unrepresented at
Mu scat. |
The danger of the acquisition by Germany of a foothold in Muscat
through the grant to Muscatis of German certificates of nationality, was
prominently before His Majesty’s Government and the Government of India
in 1914. To prevent the establishment of a precedent which could be
quoted by Germany, arrangements were made that the British flag should
not be granted to Muscat subjects in British East Africa unless a “no
objection’’certificate had first been secured from the Sultan through the
Political Agent A mid-ranking political representative (equivalent to a Consul) from the diplomatic corps of the Government of India or one of its subordinate provincial governments, in charge of a Political Agency. ,J and the question of securing the Sultan’s approval to an
edict which would have made his personal consent a condition of the transfer
of allegiance by an Omani to a foreign State was under consideration at the
outbreak of the war.§ The difficulty which would be presented by a
German request to the signatories of the Joint Declaration of 1862 for their
concurrence in the conclusion of a direct German Commercial Treaty with
Muscat (on the basis of which a political connection could be developed),
were brought to the attention of Government bv 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. in
July 1914.
* Tel. from Viceroy
to S. of S. for I.,
Oct, 29 1920,
P. 7936/20.
f Tel. from Viceroy
to S. of S. for I
Dec. 31 1913,
P. 1/14 ; F.O. to
I.O., Jan. 9 1914,
P. 139.
X Pol. Res. to G. of
1., Sept. 20 1912,
P. 4604 ; F.O. to
1.0. , June 10 1914,
P. 2340/14.
§ Pol. lies, to G. of
1., July 26 1914,
P.3676/14.
4 r
1
4 -
Relations between Muscat and Persia.
61. No question of importance as between Persia and Muscat has arisen
during the period now in question. It may be recorded that in the autumn
of 1914, on the request of the Persian Government, the Political Agent A mid-ranking political representative (equivalent to a Consul) from the diplomatic corps of the Government of India or one of its subordinate provincial governments, in charge of a Political Agency. was
instructed to exercise his good offices on behalf of Persian subjects in Muscat
should an appeal be made to him, and in all serious cases of hardship and Nov 4 \ i} n ^ ’
oppression.^ p - * 59 ‘R l> - 2924/14
The report recently received from Sir Lionel Haworth that instructions Td. from p<>i. pes.
had been issued by the Persian Government to the Governor of Bushire that ^ s 5< of p •
Persia can recognise no rulers on the Arab coast of the Gulf, and that ‘ ’
persons belonging to and arriving from Muscat (as from the other
principalities on the Arab littoral) are to be considered Persian subjects, and
Persian passports issued to them, necessitates, however, a brief reference
to the possible basis of a Persian claim to suzerainty over Muscat. So far r j0 r. 1 . 399 .
as can be traced, the only two incidents in the past on which any such claim Lor - L 400 - 7 .
could be based are the fact that for a few months in 1623 Persia occupied
Sohar and Khor Fakkan and that from 1737 until her expulsion in 1744 she
was in occupation of Muscat. It is impossible as yet to estimate the importance
which should be attached to the report referred to above, of which no
confirmation is available from other sources. Any Persian claim of the