File 4535/1928 Pt 8 ‘ – PERSIAN GULF – QUESTION OF ESTABLISHMENT OF PROTECTORATES OVER KOWEIT, BAHREIN, MUSCAT, TRUCIAL COAST.’ [‎64v] (122/194)

4
* P. 3538/PL
t P. 5179/13.
P. 492/14.
X F.O. to I.O.,
Dec. 19 1913,
P.5103.
§ Report of Anns
Traffic Committee,
1921, P. 4036/21.
|| Pol. Res. to S. of
S. for I., 264, May 1
1925 P. 1345/28.
•f F.O. to I.O.,
Dec. 22 1920,
P. 8997.
payment ol 1 lakh One lakh is equal to one hundred thousand rupees of rupees Indian silver coin also widely used in the Persian Gulf. , together with 1 lakh One lakh is equal to one hundred thousand rupees of rupees Indian silver coin also widely used in the Persian Gulf. per annum
in [the future, paid monthly in advance. In addition he was to receive
compensation for certain specific losses in 1909 and 191], The Sultan was
further guaranteed that His Majesty’s Government would give him all the
necessary support to dispose of objections that might ensue from France or
other Powers; that no right was given by the arrangement to His Majesty’s ^
Government or their officials to take action in his territories any more than
in the past; and that a friendly understanding should be reached with him
by His Majesty’s Government as to suitable arrangements for the supply of
the bond fide needs of his administration and his subjects.
13. The arrangement, which was to come into force, after three months’
notice, on the 1st September 1912, was published on the 4th June 1912,
came into operation on the appointed date, and was subsequently maintained
with complete success.
14. Very serious difficulty immediately arose with the French Government,
which expressed its readiness to approve the regulations only subject to the
compensation of the French merchants, who had hitherto played a consider
able part in the arms trade. Compensation to French interests would have
meant compensation to the other interests—Muscat, British, German,
Belgian-affected, and the objections to it from the standpoint of His'
Majesty’s Government were overwhelming. The fact that Fngland, while
a joint guarantor with 4ranee of Muscat independence under the Agreement
with France of 1862, was not a party to the French Treaty of 1844 with
Muscat, under which the arms trade was permissible, further complicated
the issue.
15. His Majesty’s Government, however, made it clear to the French
Government on the 14th September 1912, that they were firmly determined
to support the Sultan in maintaining the regulations, which, they stated, in
their view did not infringe French treaty rights, but merely regulated a
dangerous trade, a right enjoyed by every Government. They added that,
while compensation without arbitration could not be admitted, as His
Majesty’s Government did not recognise that French rights were infringed,
they were prepared to submit the question to arbitration.
16. After lengthy and difficult negotiations, which lasted until the early
part of 1914, the French Government agreed- to recognise the regulations
in force at Muscat, and the right of the Sultan to amend those regulations
with the concurrence of His Majesty’s Government, if His Majesty’s
Government, in direct negotiation with the French trade interests affected,
could arrive at an agreement as to the terms on which those interests should
be bought out. An agreement having been reached,! under which £64,495
was paid by His Majesty’s Government to the interested firms, an exchange
of notes took place on 4th February 1914, by the settlement embodied in
which the French Government undertook “no longer to claim for their
nationals the privileges and immunities secured under the Treaty between
1 ranee and Muscat of 1844, in so far as those privileges and immunities
conflict with the regulations for the prevention of the illicit trade inarms
and ammunition^ in the Sultanate. In other respects the Treaty of 1844
remains in force.” The expenditure involved was divided equally between
Indian and Impenal levenues.ijl It was decided that no compensation
should be paid to British firms affected.
17. While a continual vigilance is called for, the steps taken to put
a stop to the arms traffic from Muscat, as described above, have been
completely successful. In 1921,§ and again in 1925,|| 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.
was able to report that, save for the Batineh coast, on which a truculent
Omani tribe fthe 5 al Saad) are not under the Sultan’s effective control
(c/. para. 52), Muscat had entirely fallen out of the arms traffic ; and the fact
that under the post-war Arms Traffic Convention, to which the Sultan has
adhered at the request of His Majesty’s Government,^ Arabia had been made
a prohibited area for the import or export of arms, has for practical purposes
disposed of the probability of the recurrence in present circumstances of
international difficulties.