Page 55 - The Persian Gulf Historical Summaries (1907-1953) Vol II_Neat

41

(d) Iraq
91. Iraq “docs not recognise any protection control or supervision on the
part of any foreign power ” over Bahrain!1;') but in practice this attitude has given
rise to no difficulty. There arc no matters in dispute between Bahrain and Iraq and
relations between the two countries arc friendly. In 1949 the Iraqi Ministry of
Foreign Affairs wrote to His Majesty's Embassy in Bagdad asking for an agreement
to the establishment of a Consulate in Kuwait which would embrace Bahrain and
other Shaikhdoms in its district.!,hU) Later in the year they asked for agreement to
the opening of a separate Consulate at Bahrain.!1"1) Shortly before this an Iraqi
ex-Cabinet Minister had written to Ahmad Fakhroo, a Bahrain merchant, asking
him if he would accept the post of honorary Iraqi Consul. Ahmad Fakhroo
informed the writer orally that he could not send him a reply until the matter had
been taken up officially with His Majesty’s Embassy at Bagdad. No reply was sent
to the Iraqi note about the opening of a Consulate at Bahrain and nothing further
was heard from them on the subject.
92. In 1951 the Iraqi Prime Minister visited Bahrain and in the following
year Salman received a visit from the Regent accompanied by the Prime Minister
when Iraqi decorations were showered on members of the ruling family and
Bahrain Government employees. When the Persians made a protest about this
visit they also referred to the intention of the Iraqi Government to appoint a Consul
at Bahrain (paragraph 88 above). The Iraqis in their reply disclaimed any such
intention. In 1953 the Ruler despatched a party which included his son Isa to
Bagdad to attend King Faisal’s coronation.
(e) India
93. Soon after the transfer of power the Government of India raised the
question of the appointment of a Consul at Bahrain. The objections to this were
pointed out to them and they agreed in principle to accept the appointment of a
Trade Agent. The matter was referred to the Ruler who at first strongly objected on
the ground that a number of other countries would demand similar representation
but eventually gave way.C"2) In June 1950 the detailed terms of the proposed
appointment were communicated to him in writing. He was informed amongst
other things that the Trade Agent would not have direct access to him and that
except in certain routine matters, which were defined, would correspond with the
Bahrain Government through the Political Agent, that His Majesty's Government
would support him if action ever became necessary against the Trade Agent on
account of improper activities, and that they would continue to be responsible for
his relations with India.C**'’) The Ruler replied agreeing to the appointment and the
conditions attached to it, and stating that he would object to the question of Indians
entering Bahrain being discussed with the Trade Agent. The Government of India
were then informed of the conditions on which the appointment was approved and
also that the Trade Agent in addition to his commercial activities would be
empowered to perform normal consular functions.(,M) They replied that they felt
that it might not be possible to establish a representative at Bahrain in the
immediate future but that they would be grateful if the Secretary of the Indian
Legation at Baghdad could continue to be permitted to pay occasional visits to the
area(,,s) (paragraph 94 below). Nothing further has been heard about the
appointment of a Trade Agent.
94. In February 1950 the Government of India requested that pending final
arrangements for the appointment of an Indian representative at Bahrain the
Secretary of the Indian Legation at Baghdad should be enabled to pay periodic visits
there. His Majesty’s Government agreed with this proposal “ as an informal and
interim measure and on the understanding that the visiting Secretary should have
no direct access to the Ruler or his authorities, but would make all representations,
even on routine matters, through the Political Agent.',(,h0) His Majesty’s
Government agreed that this arrangement could continue, after they had been
(m) Bagdad to F.O. 1383/98/51 of June 15. 1951 (GA 60/23 of 1951).
(,,e) Bagdad to F.O. Despatch 103 of May 25. 1949 (E 6995/1903/91) of 1949.
C") Bagdad to F.O. Despatch 153 of August 10. 1949 (E 10155/1904/91 of 1949).
(m) P R. to F.O. 165/25/49 G of June 14, 1949 (E 7615/1901/91 of 1949).
(,,s) P.R. to F.O. 350/26/50 G of July 31. 1950 (EA 1904/19 of 1950).
(,M) C.R.O. to F.O. Enel, of October 16. 1950 (EA 1904/11 of 1950).
(,,J) C.R.O. to F.O. F 4170/13 of December 18. 1950.
(*“) C.R.O. to F.O. Enel, of March 25. 1950 (EA 1904/6 of 1950).
46639 G 2