Page 251 - The Arabian Gulf States_Neat

IRAN’S CLAIM TO BAHRAIN 189
Persia, whether they were connected with the punishment of the
Shaikh against committing piratical acts in the future, or with other
matters, were only natural if Persia were to accept responsibility and
to act in concert with the British Government in policing the Gulf.
It would be irrelevant, therefore, for Persia to consider those con­
cessions as ‘an acknowledgement of the necessity of rendering account
to the legitimate sovereign’, or, in other words, a recognition of
Persian sovereignty over Bahrain. On the contrary, it may be assumed
that Lord Clarendon had actually referred, though indirectly, to the
independence of Bahrain from the authority of the Shah when he
stated that
.. . the Sheikhs of Bahrein have at different periods entered directly into
engagements with the British Government . . .l
It is true, however, that he did not expressly refer to the independence
of Bahrain, nor did he refute the validity of the Persian claim. But the
position of the British Government on this point, at the time, was
explained by Chamberlain in his reply of 18 February 1929 when he
stated that ‘although they did not consider Persia’s claims to owner­
ship to Bahrain as valid, they were not at that time directly concerned
in refuting them. The special treaties by which they eventually agreed
to accept the control of the Shaikh’s foreign relations were concluded
in a later period. ’2
Finally, it can be contended that even if it is assumed that the
United Kingdom has recognised the Persian claim, this recognition
docs not in the least afTed the right of sovereignty enjoyed by the
Shaikh of Bahrain and his people for the past hundred and eighty-
three years during which Persia exercised no symbol of authority in
Bahrain. Moreover, Bahrain is not under the sovereignty of the United
Kingdom, and the latter cannot, therefore, transfer to Persia the
sovereignty of the island which she herself does not possess.3
But the fact that the United Kingdom has never recognised Persian
sovereignty over Bahrain was reiterated in a statement to the House
of Commons on 27 November 1957 by the then Secretary of State
for Foreign Affairs, Mr Ormsby Gore, who stated that the Iranian
claim was ‘unfounded’ and added:
The Iranian Government have been so informed on numerous occasions
and can be in no doubt of Her Majesty’s Government views on this matter.
Her Majesty's Government will continue to fulfil their obligation to

1 See above, p. 175, and see L.N.O.J., May 1929, pp. 790-3.
2L.N.a/., May 1929, p. 793.
3 On this ground the suggestion that ‘it would only be if Britain had to transfer
general predominance (over Bahrain) to any other Power that Persia might be
preferred to others’ should be regarded as absurd. Sec The Times, ‘An Untenable
Claim’, 9 April 1957.