Page 249 - The Arabian Gulf States_Neat

IRAN’S CLAIM TO BAHRAIN 187
continued to be an historical document of inestimable value’. The
historical truth about this Agreement, she maintains, is that it con­
firmed the fact that ‘Bahrain then formed part of the Persian province
of Fars’. And accordingly, she says that
no disavowal will ever invalidate this historical truth which was definitely
established so far back as 1822 by a British official, who was in an excellent
position to know the facts.1
The British reply of 18 February 1929 to this Persian assertion stated
that
The main reason for the recall, and the prompt disavowal of this tentative
agreement is that it acknowledged the King of Persia’s title to Bahrain,
of which there is not the least proof.3
The weakness of the Persian argument seems to lie in the fact that
it forces upon Britain the admission of a document whose validity
she has never recognised. Moreover, Persia argues that Bruce recog­
nised her title to Bahrain because he ‘was in an excellent position to
know the facts’.3 But the evidence of history shows that Bruce was
actually ‘given to the practice of making unauthorised agreements’,1
and that in July 1816 he himself recognised the independent status of
Bahrain, and concluded with her ruling Shaikh an unauthorised
agreement designed to defend Bahrain against external aggression.5
If Bruce was, to quote the Persian statement, ‘in an excellent position
to know the facts’ he would not have contradicted himself by recog­
nising Bahrain in 1822, as part of Persia after he had admitted her
independence in 1816.6
(ii) The Clarendon Note: The second document on which Persia relies
is Lord Clarendon’s statement, discussed above. The interpretations
placed on this statement by both the Persian and the British Govern­
ments are at variance. In her Note of 2 August 1928 Persia construed
Lord Clarendon’s statement as a recognition on the part of Britain
of Persian sovereignty over Bahrain.
The British point of view about Lord Clarendon’s statement of 29
April 1869 was explained by the British Foreign Secretary, Sir Austen
Chamberlain, in two replies dated 18 January 1928 and 18 February
1929. In these, he emphatically disputed the Persian contention that
by the terms of Lord Clarendon’s statement ‘any recognition of the
1 L.N.O./., September 1928, p. 1362.
3 Ibid., May 1929, p. 792.
3 Ibid., September 1928, p. 1362.
4 Kelly, J. B., ‘The Persian Claim to Bahrain’, International Affairs, 33 (1957),
p. 58.
510., Bombay Secret Proceedings, vol. 41, Secret Consultation, 29, 31 July 1819,
p. 1413. (Communication from Captain Bruce to Chief Secretary, Bombay,
31 July 1916.) • See ibid., and Kelly, op. cit.