File 522/1922 Pt 4 'Persian Gulf: Bahrein: Internal' [‎106v] (217/616)

18
In that communication we stated that as regards Bahrain and the Tru ai |
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 agree-
ments 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 p ers ia i s 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. .
70 i n this reference I will again quote from Sir Percy Cox’s remarks at the
Society on 27th October last, which I quoted in a previous despatch 1
He said with regard to Bin Saud :
“ 1 have discussed his ambitions with him many times. It may be of in
terest if I tell you briefly what they are. Practically he thinks that
he is justified in principle in regaining any territory that his fore
fathers 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 IbnSaud: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, Bahrain 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 Bin Sand’s projects
on the shores of Arabia. Let us see how his action bears out Sir Percy Cox s state
ments.
In 1916 as Sir Percy Cox states, we had a Treaty with Bin Saud.
In 1927 we attempted to include a section in the Treaty with the following
wording:—
“ His Majesty the King of the Hedjaz and Sultan of Nejd and its Dependen
cies undertakes as his fathers did before him to refrain from all aggr^
sion or interference with the territories of Kuwait, Bahrain and of the
Shaikhs of Katar and the Oman coast, who are under the protection
of the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and who have trea y
relations with the said Government ”.
With the exception that no reference made to the question of determining the
limits of the territories mentioned, this article repeats the provisions of Artie e
of the Treaty, which we had already made with him in 1916.
75. 1 et Bin Saud now found it inconsistent with his dignity as an independen
ruler to accipt the phrase “ to refrain from all aggression or interference 1110
particularly because the word interference seemed to him capable of too wi e
interpretation (vide Mr. Consul Jordon’s despatch E.-477/119/91, dated 26 th January
He has now asked us for the terms of our treaties, which he knows lea ve /
rulers in question independent, though they may not hold communication 1
Foreign Powers.