Page 114 - The Origins of the United Arab Emirates_Neat

90 The Origins of the United Arab Emirates

that the jalbut had been seized because it carried 400 pounds of
sugar and two tons of rice.68 This was contested by the Political
Resident, who said that only two bags of sugar were on board
the vessel, enough for the use of the passengers. Finally, diplomatic
pressure won through, and the boat and the passengers were released
early in August, although some money and goods were detained;
furthermore, the representative of the Qawasim on Tunb, Mahmud
Salman, who had been a passenger, died soon after he had been
released.69
Once the jalbut had been released, there remained two matters
to be dealt with by the British authorities. The first was the question
of the release of the confiscated goods, and of general compensation
for the retention of the vessel; and the second was the more vital
issue of the Iranian claim to Tunb, for the incident had from
the beginning been regarded by the Iranian authorities as a flagrant
smuggling offence on an Iranian island. Two definite stands were
now taken. The Foreign Office wanted the Political Resident to
settle the affair locally, especially as the customs service had indicated
that the incident had occurred without the knowledge of the govern­
ment in Tehran. The India office, the Admiralty and the Government
of India, on the other hand, wanted to put political and diplomatic
pressure on the Iranian Government. They were worried about
their responsibility to the Arabs of the Trucial Coast, whose condition
was deteriorating because of their inability to avenge themselves.
The Senior Naval Officer reported the agitation on the Coast,
particularly in Dubai, where the ruler was under great strain and
barely able to contain the anger of his people, who held him
responsible for the obvious lack of British support.70 Sir Arthur
Hirtzel of the India Office noted of the report that, ‘It ... ought
to make even the F. O. blush.’71
Finally, a compromise was reached. Both the Government of
India and the British Government decided that, owing to the long
delay that could be expected before the Iranians paid the compensa­
tion claimed,72 they should themselves pay out the compensation
fee of 5000 rupees, in the hope that it would have a settling
effect on the Arabs. The Treasury, however, refused to sanction
the payment, rejecting the decision that the Arabs of the Coast
had a right to expect it as a result of their relationship with
Britain.73 Since Anglo-Iranian negotiations that the British Govern­
ment hoped would result in a new treaty were about to start,
no further action was taken regarding compensation; since in May
1928 the two governments had reached a verbal agreement whereby
Tunb and Abu Musa were recognised as Arab possessions, and
the British Government did not want to do anything that might
prevent the Iranians from recognising the same in a formal treaty.74