Page 159 - The Arabian Gulf States_Neat

THE PRESENT LEGAL POSITION 97
the entering of British troops into the Protectorate, the Colonial
Secretary stated:
The Sultan has told the Governor (of Aden) that he considers that the
movement of British troops into Lahej for the arrest of the Jifris and other
purposes without his prior consent to be not in accordance with his Pro­
tectorate Treaty.
The Governor made it clear to the Sultan that in order to carry out Her
Majesty's Government treaty obligations, British troops must be at liberty
to go anywhere in the Protectorate at will, including Lahej as well as the
other States.
This statement has my full approval and endorsement.1

It is noteworthy that this statement appears to interpret the United
Kingdom’s obligation under the treaty of 1952 as implying the right
to station troops, if necessary, in Lahej for combating subversion
within the Protectorate. This right was claimed by the United Kingdom
despite the fact that the terms of her treaty with the Sultan did not
give her the right to interfere in the internal affairs of Lahej. The
Sultan himself considered the British action in his territory as ‘illegal*
and accused the British Government of ‘violating’ the treaty of
1952.2 Later, the United Kingdom took far more serious action against
the Sultan by formally withdrawing her recognition from him. This
virtually meant that he was banned from returning to Lahej.3
The Lahej controversy seems to suggest that the United Kingdom
may be seeking to retain quite wide powers of interpretation of her
treaties with protectorates.
Whether the United Kingdom would be inclined, in cases of dis­
putes between her and the Shaikhdoms, to interpret her treaty obliga­
tions with the latter in the same manner as she did in the case of
Lahej is a question which is difficult to answer in strict legal terms.
However, it can be argued that since the recognition by the United
Kingdom of a sovereign ruler under her protection is closely con­
nected with the right of protection exercised over the ruler concerned,
the withdrawal of such recognition would only deprive him of British
1 House of Commons Debates, vol. 587, Written Answers, col. 111,8 May 1958.
* The Times, 11 July 1958.
3 The Times, 11 July 1958. ‘The removal of a native ruler’, commented the
Editor of The Times, ‘for whatever cause, is apt to have serious consequences.’ It
is interesting to note that in June 1965, a similar incident happened in the Arabian
Gulf when the Shaikh of Sharjah, Saqr ibn Sultan, ‘was deposed, officially, by a
unanimous decision of his own family and replaced by a cousin’. It was no secret
then that the Ruler’s deposition was the work of the British Government which
objected to his determination to accept Arab League financial assistance. The
other six Trucial States’ Rulers refused to accept the Arab League’s funds unless
they were channelled through the British sponsored Development Fund (T.S.D.F.).
See the Economist Intelligence Unit, Quarterly Economic Review, No. 22, July