Page 215 - Records of Bahrain (7) (ii)_Neat

Bahrain-Qatar seabed, 1951-1960 605

CONFIDENTIAL

Political Agency,
(1'fc/1/6oa) DOHA.
April 20, 1960.

In your letter of April 1 2 to Robert Walmcloy you
aoked for ray views about your propoaalB for the Bohrairv^
Qatar seabed boundary.
2. The reaction here to our upsetting the 1947 award ie
bound to be unfavourable when the change will so clearly
benefit Bahrain at the expense of Qatar. The Qataris v/ill
be confirmed in their suspicion that, v/hon their interests
confliot with those of any of their neighbours, v/o regard the
latter as of greater importanoe to us. They may well use the
proposed change os u pretext to dispute the 1939 award of
Ilawar Islands to Bahrain about which they have never been
particularly happy.
I
3. I should have thought we could defend a decision to keep
to the 1947 line even 'at a t irae. when tho principle of the
median and laterla lino is accepted us a guide for drawing
seabed boundaries where (he states concerned have not agreed
to a lino drawn in some other way. I realise that Bahrain
has not been satisfied with the 1947 line; but in so far as
wo are responsible for, tho foreign relations of both stutes,
it could perhaps be regarded as a line already established
which should not be udoet by the subsequent acceptance of the
principle of median nrd lateral1 linos.as a guide for settling
undecided seabed bourn! aries. However, I recognise your
difficulty with the Rvler of Bahrain, and if u change has to
bo made, I agree that a line drawn in occordunce Y/ith median
line principles con bc| explained and defonded more easily than
any other.
4« I am a little co r ccmed ot tho implication in paragraph 7
of your letter under reference Ithat we should chow out
displeasure with Qatar by cooking wayo of drawing the seabed
boundary more favourably to Bahrain. If it bccoraos widely
thought that wc are swayed in the conduct of tho foreign
relations of those states by our preference for one state over
another rather than by an impartial consideration of the claims
of both parties, this will destroy altogether the relationship
of trust, and the belief in our impartiality, which is one of
the fev/ holds we hove got over the Qataris in o ur efforts to
persuade them to reform thoir ways. My own view is that any
apparent bias in favour of Bolirain will make our task in Qatar
harder without bringing us consequent advantages in Bahrain whore
the Ruler ie much more dependent on us than i3 tho Ruler of
Qatar. In the circumstances, therefore, I should much prefer
that Jnradah should continue to be regarded as a shoal rather
than as a Bahraini ioland. If, however, Jaradoh were
recognised as an ioland and it were awarded to Bahrain, I
should hope that it would not affect the drawing of the median
lino and that it v/ould only detract from Qatar's scabod to tho
extent/
J.A. Ford, Esq., MC,
British Residency,
BAHRAIN.

CONFIDENTIAL