Page 208 - Historical Summaries (Persian Gulf - Vol II) 1907-1953

193
to persuade him to grant the concession to the Burmah Oil Company as an entirely
British Company but the consensus of opinion was against this, especially after
Indian Oil Concessions Limited had obtained the concession for the neighbouring
Kalat territory.!10') In August 1939 the Burmah Oil Company withdrew their
application for a concession as their rivals had obtained the concession for Kalat
territory for which they were also competing and they did not think it worth their
while to operate in Gwadur territory alone.!104) They made an ex-gratia payment
of Rs. 75,000 to the Sultan. Subsequently Indian Oil Concessions Limited also
withdrew their application partly because their survey of neighbouring territory
showed that there was little hope of finding oil in Gwadur and partly because of the
outbreak of war. Since then no oil company has shown any interest in Gwadur.

IX.—Foreign Relations
(a) General
66. Before the last war the Sultan’s freedom of action in dealing with other
foreign powers was a matter of some concern to His Majesty’s Government and
the Government of India and from time to time ways and means of curtailing it
were discussed. Matters were brought to a head in 1937 when the Sultan wrote
direct to the President of the United States of America, without informing the
Political Resident, suggesting that he might visit that country. The Political Agent
under the instructions of the Political Resident, who had previously consulted
the India Office and the Government of India, wrote to the Sultan with reference
to this matter pointing out that when it was to the advantage of his State he
communicated with foreign powers through His Majesty’s Government as in the
case of the raising of the Muscat tariffs and asking him in view of his close relations
and common interests with His Majesty’s Government to inform them of any
communications which he proposed to make to foreign powers.!105) The Sultan
replied that he did not consider his writing direct to the President of the United
States of America, with whom he was in treaty relations, was a breach of his treaty
relations with His Majesty’s Government. The representations to foreign powers
on the subject of the Muscat tariffs were made at his special request and not on
the initiative of the Political Resident. He was confident that His Majesty’s
Goevrnment would never make such demands from him as neither he nor his
predecessors were accustomed to. When he had matters in which he thought
His Majesty’s Government should be consulted he would not fail to do so. If
he had any communication to foreign powers which he considered it in his interest
to send through His Majesty’s Government he would do so, but otherwise he
would continue to act in accordance with the old procedure. The opinion of the
Foreign Office legal expert (Sir Eric Beckett) on the subject was as follows:
“ It would appear that there is no treaty which His Majesty’s Government can
appeal to as obliging the Sultan of Muscat to consult or even inform His Majesty’s
Government as regards his dealings with foreign powers unless he was
contemplating alienating a bit of his territory in which case the .declaration of
1891 (,ufc) could be appealed to. Further, as a matter of strict law, it is in fact
contrary to the declaration of 1862(*07) for His Majesty’s Government to insist that
he should do so. To compel him to do so is exercising our influence in a manner
which !I think) is inconsistent with independence.”!10*) A suggestion made in the
same note that a threat to terminate the Zanzibar subsidy might be used for insisting
on His Majesty’s Government being consulted on the Sultan’s relations with foreign
powers was rejected as not being consistent with the conditions of the grant of the
subsidy.!10*)
67. ^ No further attempt has been made to induce the Sultan to keep His
Majesty’s Government informed about his communications with foreign powers,
and he only does so when it suits him. He did not, for instance, inform Her Majesty’s
P") I.O. to F.O. P.Z. 3402/39 of June 16. 1939 (4372/51/91 of 1939).
(,04) I.O. to F.O. P.Z. 5053/39 of August 26. 1939 (E 6041/51 /91 of 1939).
('•*) P R- to I.O. C/267 of September 28. 1937 (E 6332/1023/91 of 1937).
P°*) E. 6946/1023/91 of 1937.
('") No. 7 V. T.C.
(•«») No. 3 V, T.C.
('”) F.O. to i.O. E 954/305/91 of March 11. 1938.
46639 2 c 2