Page 90 - The Arabian Gulf States_Neat
P. 90
28 THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE ARABIAN GULF STATES
terms which, they said, were very lenient. They advocated instead
the imposition of more strenuous conditions on the ‘pacificatcd’ Arab
Shaikhs. In their opinion, the guilty Shaikhs ‘should have been re
moved from possession of authority and those who had actually
fallen in the hands of the British expedition should have been detained
in custody’. In addition, they criticised the provisions of the treaty on
the grounds that
the treaty ought to have interdicted the fitting out of armed vessels at ports
hitherto piratical; to have limited the size of the vessels employed in com
mcrce; to have stipulated for powers of search by the British authorities in
order to enforce these conditions; to have provided for a restriction of the
export of timber from India; and to have forbidden the construction of
fortifications in certain circumstances, at the same time empowering the
British Government to enter on and destroy any that might be built in
disregard of the prohibition.
Further, objection was taken to the treaty because it ‘afforded no
guarantee against the renewal of piracy’. Article 5, they said, did not
give such a guarantee since it ‘was so drafted that breach of its condi
tions would not render the culprits liable to any punishment’.1
In reply to these ‘strictures’ Major-General Grant Keir assured the
Government that he was satisfied with the practicability of his treaty
and that the ‘minor stipulations’ suggested by the Government might
be
enforced at any time when necessity for them should arise for they would
be in harmony with the general spirit and objects of the treaty, which were
perfectly understood by the Arabs.2
(b) The interpretation of the Treaty
In 1823, the British Resident in the Gulf asked for the decision of
Government on a number of questions relating to th i interpretation
of the treaty of 1820. These were: (1) Whether the British authorities
had the right to inquire into the building of new vessels in the piratical
ports and to destroy them if the explanation given was unsatisfactory?
(2) Whether the authorities could detain the vessels of signatory states
‘if not possessed of the papers or flying the flag required by Articles 3
and 5 of the Treaty?’ The Government’s decision on both questions
was in the negative. The Government was also asked to say: (1)
Whether, according to the terms of the treaty, the British authorities
could forbid the building or rebuilding of fortifications by the Shaikhs ?
(2) What was the scope of Article 9 relating to the slave trade? (3)
To what extent the British Government was under obligation, accord
ing to Article 10, to protect the ‘pacificated’ Arabs against the attacks
of non-signatory Arabs?
1 Lorimer, pp. 672-3; Saldanha, Precis, op. cit. 2 Ibid.