"ملف ‏19/109 II (C 17)‎ البحرين: علاقات الحاكم مع القوى الخارجية الأخرى" [و‎‎١‎١‎٢] (٥٣٤/٢٢٩)

20
The above being the state of mind of the Shaikh of Bahrein and his
advisers, I do not think one may be surprised at the three requests made by
Shaikh Abdullah in London.
To turn to the three points in question.
Point 1 —The Civil Commissioner states in his No. 1^988, dated 30th
October 1919. to " Zinneremo," London, that the matter was for all practical
purposes settled when the Order-in-Council was brought into force. There are
still points, however, over which a ruling is required. As I understand it, the
term "neighbouring Arab Eulers " refers to the inhabitants of Qatar Peninsula
and Nejd. is it intended to refer to the inhabitants of Oman, Kuwait, Zanzibar,
Hadramant, Yemen, etc.. thf inhabitants of all w r hich places are to be found
here trading at all times ? In other words are local resident subjects of the
Rulers of Oman, Kuwaif, Zanzibar, Hejaz and inhabitants of Hadramant and
Yemen to be considered under the jurisdiction of the Shaikh of Bahrein or
under that of the Political Agent? A ruling is required on this point as Shaikh
'Isa certainly thinks he should control them.
Point 2. —I have nothing to say except that up to the day of his depar
ture, my predecessor was carrying on a correspondence with the Shaikh of
Bahrein over this very subject. The Shaikh had dismissed a member of the
" Majlis-alTJrfi " and had appointed another member without the knowledge
or approv al of ihe Political Agent. The circumstances suggested an attempt to
make a tesb case to see how far the Political Agent would be supported.
The Political Agent contended that under the Order-in-Couneil he had
every right to be consulted in the matter and refused to recognise " Majlis-
al-Urfi" until Shaikh 'Isa withdrew his nomination. My predecessor went
away at this stage of the crises and it has been left for me to settle the tangle.
I certainly consider the Order-in-Council is clear on the subjec' and should
be insisted on. In the meantime the Majlis-al-TJrfi's sittings have been sus
pended pending settlement of this vexed question.
Point 3. The qupsfion of Zuhara. —I have been through a great tnany files
on the subject and have consulted contiflentially various local people of
prominence, without, of course, divulging the reasons for my questions. The
conclusions I have arrived at are that it would be distinctly unwise to allow
Shikh Isa to occupy Zubara. On the following grounds :—
{a) Shaikh Abdullah bin Jassim of Qatar would strongly resent the
Shaikh of Bahrein again getting a footing on the Qatar
peninsula. He is a weaker man and Zubara in the hands of
Shaikh Isa would be a pistol at his head always.
(&) Shaikh Abdullah bin Jassim would certainly object to the develop
ment of a new port on the peninsula of Qatar since it would at
once divert all trade from Dohad (Bida) to Zubara and he would
not only lose a large amount of revenue at present accruing
from the Customs House A1 Dohah, but would stand every chance
of seeing Dohah entirely disappear as the seaport of Qatar.
{c) Ibn Saud similarly would take offence at a revival of the port of
Zubara under Shaikh Isa's jurisdiction for like reasons to (6)
above, as such a port would mean the killing of his new trade
centre of O'Jair. It should be noted that the harbour of Zubara
is naturally much better than that of either Pohah or O'Jair, and
with the Shaikh of Bahrein actually compelling all Bahrein trade
to go to the mainland through his port of Zubara, the end of
both Abdullah bin Jassim's and Ibn Saud's ports would be certain
and quick. As matters stand a good deal of coolness already
exists between Ibn Saud and Shaikh Isa owing to tjie latter
having recently instituted a 5 per cent, tax on goods passing
through Bahrain for O'Jair even though such goods never leave
the Bahrein Customs House. Ibn Saud contends that~ Shaikh Isa
should only take demurrage charges (or Arthiyeh).
In my opinion the suggestion of Shaikh Isa's that he be allowed to revive
a ten-year-old controversy should be nipped in the bud. The new move is