Page 412 - The Arabian Gulf States_Neat

346 THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE ARABIAN GULF STATES
between Iran and Sharjah was reported to have been concluded at
the time. The agreement provided that

“Iran would give £1,500,000 a year to Sharjah in aid until Shariah’s
annual revenue from oil deposits reached £3,000,000 a year.1
Conclusion
Although the Iranian landing of troops on Abu Musa was made in
pursuance of the provisions of the above Iran-Sharjah Agreement,
it was criticised by a number of Arab States as being4 ‘an unjustified
aggressive act”. The Council of Ministers of the United Arab
Emirates issued on 2 December, 1971 a statement criticising the
Iranian occupation. It was said in the statement that the UAE
“repudiates the principle of the use of force, rejects Iran’s recent
occupation of a part of the cherished Arab homeland, and advocates
the need to respect legitimate rights and discuss any difference that
may occur among states through internationally agreed methods.2
On 30 November 1971, following Iran’s occupation of the islands.
Iraq broke off diplomatic relations with both Iran and Britain. The
Iranian action was described by Iraq as flagrant aggression in
collusion with Britain.3 All other countries joined hands in
condemning the Iranian military landings on the three islands. The
British Government was also criticised for not taking action to deter
the Iranian landings. In view of the Arab countries, Britain’s
inaction in respect of the islands was contrary to her treaty
obligations with the Trucial Rulers.4 But since Iran’s occupation of
the islands was on 30 November the British Government, therefore,
argued that it was impossible to stop the Iranian action just one day
before the termination of the treaty relations, which came to an end
on 1 December 1971.5

1. Keesing’s op. cit. p. 25010A.
2. Arab Report & Records (1971), p. 622.
3. Keesing’s op. cit.
4. For the Arab countries’ political reaction on this matter, see 3rd and 4th Reports,
published by the Political Department of the Arab League on 2 December 1971.
5. Arab Report & Record (1971), p. 624. And see The Times, (London) 1 December
(1971), The Times stated that “while Britain was technically responsible for the
islands’ defence at the time of landing’’, the Ruler of Ras al-Khaimah had
“declined many opportunities to settle the dispute on much the same lines as the
settlement between Iran and Sharjah over the island of Abu Musa’ . For British
press reaction to the Iranian action, see Arab Report & Record, op. cit. p. 598. In
an article in The Times on 2 December 1971, J. Caminada criticised the British
Government for its failure to defend the islands against Iran’s landings on the
grounds that “Britain could not be held to its responsibilities on a Treaty s final
day’’. The writer comments on this statement of the Foreign Office by saying:
“What hypocrisy is here. A treaty, surely, is as valid on the last day_as on the
first. Unilateral notification, such as sent to the Shaikh (copy to the Shah) that