The Press SATURDAY, APRIL 11, 1953. Expansionism in Arabia

Press, Volume LXXXIX, Issue 27012, 11 April 1953, Page 6

The Press SATURDAY, APRIL 11, 1953. Expansionism in Arabia

Differences between Britain and another oil-enriched Arab State were carried a stage further by the i denunciation, announced in the House of Commons last week, of i t.wo agreements with Saudi Arabia. The dispute ostensibly concerns an undefined frontier area between Saudi Arabia and several Persian Gulf sultanates and sheikdoms, whose rights and independence are guaranteed by Britain under longstanding treaties. But the wider i issues of oil and Arab nationalism are involved in the issue. Though the existence of oil under the territory in dispute has not been proved, it could be that the vast Middle East foil reservoir extends under it; and i it seems unlikely that the oil-bearing i structures which occur prolifically lin the Arabian Peninsula will not some day be discovered in the Trucial Coast sheikdoms or the Sultanate of Muscat and Oman. No doubt, those are probabilities that the rulers of Saudi Arabia have in mind. But it is a fact that the status its oilfields have won for Saudi Arabia have spurred the’ ambitions of the Wahabis (the Mohammedan sect dominant in Saudi Arabia) to extend their domination over the Arabian Peninsula and that the huge revenues Saudi Arabia receives from its oilfields furnish sinews for expansionist policies. In the 1920’s Sir Arnold Wilson, an authority on politics in the Persian Gulf, wrote: “If Abdul Aziz ibn Saud [King Ibn “ Saud of Saudi Arabia] is success- “ ful in discovering and developing “ fresh sources of revenue he may “ yet succeed, where his predecessors “ since the days of Mohammed “ failed, in creating a united “ Arabia Saudi Arabian encroachments and propaganda in the sultanates and sheikdoms around the periphery of Saudi Arabia seek to upset, to Saudi Arabia’s advantage, a status quo that Britain has managed, with tolerable success, to preserve for more than 100 years. British relations wth the sheikdoms on the Trucial Coast of the Persian Gulf have been settled since 1820, when Sir William Grant Keir took an expedition from Bombay to what was the Pirate Coast. Grant Keir , imposed on the tribes a treaty by 1 which they undertook to cease “ plunder and piracy, by land and “ sea . . . for ever ”. Among themselves the tribes were to continue their former relations “ with the ex- “ ception that they shall be at peace “ with the British Government, and “ shall not fight with each other ”. In substance this arrangement persists today. A Treaty of Perpetual Peace in 1853 put on a formal basis the- British Government’s role of guardian of the territories and of the peace of their peoples. Under the treaty the sheiks, on behalf of themselves, their heirs and successors, undertook that they would on no account enter into any agreement or correspondence with any Power other than the British Government, receive foreign agents, or cede, sell or give for occupation any part of their territory save to the British Government. King Ibn Saud’s obligation not to interfere with the Arab territories along the Persian Gulf is clearly laid down in his treaty of friendship with Britain. The territorial interference that Britain alleges on behalf of one of the Trucial sheikdoms and with the authority of the Sultan of Muscat concerns the Buraimi Oasis. The frontiers have never been defined in a region that is a vast, sandy desert; but in the existence of the present Saudi Arabian kingdom, Buraimi has always been well outside its territory. Saudi Arabian troops arrived there last August, infringing an agreement concluded in 1951 providing for non-intervention by Britain and Saudi Arabia in the disputed region pending negotiations. A second agreement was made last October limiting movement of Saudi Arabian and other forces in the Buraimi area, where clashes had occurred. The second agreement has been infringed by Saudi Arabia; and this has led to denunciation of both agreements by Britain, which now reserves to itself complete freedom of action. Last month, Saudi Arabia hinted that it would take the dispute to the United Nations, presumably because the work of a Saudi Arabian representative at Buraimi, who has been trying to win over the tribesmen from their sheiks, has satisfied Saudi Arabia that it can win more from a plebiscite it is asking for than from arbitration. It is regrettable to see signs of what may develop into another major dispute in the Middle East, where there are too many already. It is equally regrettable to contemplate disturbance of a simple working arrangement which has kept the territory on the Arabian side of the Persian Gulf in relative order and peace for more than 100 years. Those conditions pay considerable tribute to British policy and to the wisdom and skill of British political officers who have spent great parts of their lives, largely unnoticed, in most unenviable surroundings.