File 4535/1928 Pt 8 ‘ – PERSIAN GULF – QUESTION OF ESTABLISHMENT OF PROTECTORATES OVER KOWEIT, BAHREIN, MUSCAT, TRUCIAL COAST.’ [‎33r] (59/194)

@
international difficulties to which
acceptance of this proposal mi^it give rise,
I an inclined to see strong objection to
undertaking the general liability for the
security of Muscat which would be involved
in a Treaty of Protection. As matters
stand, we are committed to no more than
the securing of the coast towns of Luscat
and attrah against invasion from the tribes
of the interior (and even this is in no
sense a binding guarantee of a permanent
character), and the assistance given to the
Muscat State against revolting vassals
^ f I «nc«.- ua
such as the Amir of Jaalanis\ I conceive,
c *^iV3*r solely because it is to our interest
to keep Muscat together as a political
entity.
?
8. CAiH-^resent treaty engagcments
for practical purposes give us full
control in Muscat. The danger that a
future Ruler may cause trouble by intrigues
with foreign Powers is admittedly one
which cannot be appreciated at this stage.
But it is, in my view, a danger which His
Majesty*s Government can face with a
certain degree of equanimity'. The
arguments against the extension of our
' liabilities in respect of the State appear,
for the reasons which I have set out above,
to be strong, and I would suggest, for te
consideration of my colleagues, that in
Muscat we should content ourselves with
aiming at the maintenance of the, status
quo, and should not pursue the idea of a
formal protectorate.