Coll 28/67 ‘Persia. Annual Reports, 1932–’ [‎202v] (404/644)

AMORP
14
seas, which meant that they would not avail themselves of their right to search
Muscat vessels on the high seas. Further, the recent conversations on the subject
had confirmed the view that the Iranian Government were unaware of the
existence of the proclamations. He therefore deprecated the withdrawal of the
proclamations at present. The proposal was not pursued.
Bahrein.
53. The Iranian Government’s policy of protesting at anything which they
regarded as an infringement of their sovereignty over Bahrein was vigorously
maintained during the year. In February the Bahrein Government enacted a
Nationality Law and a law regarding the ownership of immovable property in
Bahrein by foreigners. The main object of these laws was to retaliate for the
treatment of Bahrainis in Iran. The effect of the Nationality Law was to
assimilate to Bahrein nationality the large number of persons born in Bahrein
of Iranian parents, unless they preserved their Iranian nationality by registering
at the Political Agency An office of the East India Company and, later, of the British Raj, headed by an agent. . In the Property Laws, the Bahrein Government reserved
to themselves the right to adopt the principle of reciprocity towards foreigners
in the matter of their ownership of immovable property in Bahrein. It was
intended that the Bahrein Government should subsequently publish a notice
applying the law to Iranian nationals in Bahrein.
54. On the 13th June the Iranian Government protested against the enact
ment of these laws in a note stating that they were contrary to the sovereignty of
Iran over Bahrein, and that they could not in any way impair the rights of the
Iranian Government. As on the occasion of the Iranian protest in 1936 at an
exchange of notes between His Majesty’s Charge d’Affaires at Jedda and the
Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Saudia Arabia regarding the levy of transit dues
at Bahrein, a brief reply was sent on the 9th September, stating that the views of
His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom on the subject had been set
out on many occasions, and notably in a note addressed to Hovannes Khan
Mossaed on'the 18th February, 1929. The intended notification applying the
Bahrein Property Law to Iranian subjects in Bahrein was published on the
1st November. In a note dated the 28th December the Iranian Government duly
protested against the notification, stating that it was now clear that the sole object
of the Property Law was to impose restrictions on the ownership of property by
non-Bahreini Iranians who had settled in the islands. A simple acknowledgment
only of this note had been sent by the end of the year.
55. At the beginning of December the Iranian Minister in Bagdad informed
the Iraqi Minister for Foreign Affairs that his Government understood that the
Sheikh of Bahrein proposed shortly to visit Bagdad to discuss questions of
common interest with the Iraqi Government. The Iranian Minister said that he
had been instructed to inform the Iraqi Government that his Government would
hold participation of the Iraqi Government in any such discussions to be an act
unbecoming in a friendly neighbour State. The Iraqi Minister for Foreign
Affairs replied that the sheikh was not coming to Bagdad, and that in any case
the Iraqi Government were not concerned with the dispute between the Iranian
Government and His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom about
Bahrein.
56. On the 25th September the nakhuda of a Bahreini dhow A term adopted by British officials to refer to local sailing vessels in the western Indian Ocean. at
Khorramshahr was informed by the Iranian naval authorities that he should
register the dhow A term adopted by British officials to refer to local sailing vessels in the western Indian Ocean. there. He replied that he must refer to the owner. The naval
authorities kept his Bahrein registration papers and told him not to leave
Khorramshahr. On the 3rd October they issued to him a set of Iranian registra
tion papers, and the dhow A term adopted by British officials to refer to local sailing vessels in the western Indian Ocean. sailed on the 8th October under Iranian papers. The
action of the naval authorities was the logical outcome of their claim to Bahrein,
and it was clear that no representations would lead the Iranian Government to
modify their standing instructions regarding Bahreini dhows in their ports.
A formal note of protest only was therefore addressed to the Iranian Govern
ment on the 16th November, and the sheikh was advised to warn owners of dhows
that in their own interests they should avoid calls at Iranian ports as far as
possible. On the 12th December the Iranian Government replied to His Majesty’s
Minister’s note of protest, restating the view that Bahrein was an inalienable
part of Iran and saying that they regarded the protest as unjustifiable.