Page 212 - The Origins of the United Arab Emirates_Neat

i7» The Origins of the United Arab Emirates
on tlic Coast.46 Fowlc, however, retained his earlier opinion. He
disagreed with YVeightman’s assessment, and regarded i( as unneces-
sarily pessimistic; besides, he could see no reason for altering official
policy before oil had been discovered in the area if ever it would
be. Once again, he made it clear that any alteration in the existing
policy would necessitate a ‘take-over’ of the Coast.47
YVeightman was not convinced. He had been particularly incensed
that, owing to personal obstruction by the ruler of Abu Dhabi,
a Petroleum Concessions exploration party sent out to Buraimi
during the winter of 1938 (with the official blessing of the Political
Resident) failed to obtain necessary geological data. The Political
Agent expressed ‘regret that we seem reluctant to use the means
we possess to deter a crew of feeble but ill-conditioned shaikhs
from treating the wishes of His Majesty’s Government with quite
such persistent disrespect’,48 and advocated,

let us make it perfectly clear that when we say we want a
thing we are going to get it ... and without undue delay;
and that obstructive tactics do not pay. . . . We certainly do
not want to administer their disgusting territories and people,
but if they happen to be on the air route or there is oil underground
they have got to behave.49

Fowle objected and refused to accept this manner of thinking,
finding the accepted definition of policy adequate. He continual
to dominate the Coast, using any means he could justify. In 1939,
for example, following the collapse of the reform movement in
Dubai, he advised Shaykh Sa‘id to set up an advisory council.
The India Office questioned the reason for Fowle’s action and
saw it as a deviation from official policy. Fowle argued that advice
could hardly be classified as interference, and admitted that he
felt duty-bound, since Britain ‘put a ring-fence around the Arab
states adorned with a large “Hands Off” notice board’, to give
advice and guidance when necessary.50
The India Office was annoyed that Fowle had given Shaykh
Sa‘id advice without consultation. Fowle realised that he had side­
stepped the normal procedure and admitted, ‘ I quite understand
the desire of the India Office for reference to be made before
advice of the kind is given in future cases and have noted this
point’; but he could not resist adding, in justification of his behaviour,
that he had been following a precedent set by the British Government
when it gave its consent to similar advice being given to the
ruler of Kuwait.51 This was not the first time that the India Office
had been taken unawares by Fowle. In March 1938, upon hearing
revival of the slave trade, he had withdrawn ‘the good offices
of a