'File 19/243 III (C 95) Zubarah' [‎173r] (360/462)

-3-
in all cases where his co-operation is required.
The enclosed copies of correspondence forwarded
to me by Packer of Petroleum concessions, Limited,
are a further illustration of this tendency. As
I wrote in my other letter we cannot allow it to
be persisted in but the mere adoption of a negative
attitude will not insure us the co-operation required.
What then is to be said to the Sheikh when, with his
countenance cast in an expression of catastrophic
gloom, he again comes forward with his complaints
.that the sheikh of Qatar is not observing the 1944
Agreement?
10. We should not try to have it both ways
by, on the one hand, refusing to interpret the
agreement and to enforce our interpretation and, on
the other hand, by telling the sheikh of Bahrain
that he must continue to observe it by not re-enforcing
the blockade. If we cannot do the first we should
be able to say to the Sheikh that if he considers
the Sheikh of Qatar is not observing the agreement
he himself may take any action he likes even if it
involves setting aside the agreement anc- revertiiig
to the conditions as they existed before it. Before
we can think of doing this it is necessary to be
clear as to the answers to two questions, viz.,
(i) What did the agreement achieve? (ii) If we told
the Sheikh that he was at liberty to set it:
would he do so? 1
11. The results of the agreement >0^e set out
at paragraph 4 of Hickinbotham 1 s despatch Ko. C /1424
dated the 4th October, 1944. I do not think tnat
the alleged adverse effect on trade or on the con
servation of shipping space (especially as tno *ar
is now over) are developments to be feared trom a
reversion to the conditions prior to ^ne agreement*
But before making a similar decision regarding tne
effect on the labour position in Bahrain of a pro
hibition of the entry of Qatari labour, I would have
very carefully to ascertain the amount of Qatari
labour employed in Bahrain especially in the oil
company since the possible loss of any labour irom
Bahrain is not to be contemplated with equanimity.
When in the course of my many conversations
with the Sheikh I touched tentatively on the possiDility
of reverting to the conditions prior to the agreemeno
he carefully avoided making any suggestion ol a reply
to my implied question. The reason for this was
suggested to me by a remark of Belgrave s that ohe
3heikh did not wish to revert to the earlier conntions
since the agreement had improved the positioii in
Zubarah 18th-century town located 105 km from Doha. . I assumed that he referred zo trio removal
of the guards from the fort there.
to jfy conclusion, therefore, is that '..nen ^' ie
Sheikh next complains that the jheiKn oi ^auar is noo
fulfilling the terms of the agreement ne snoul: l oe
told that he is at liberty to cake v/hatevor action he
likes, even if it involves reverting to the conaicions
orior'to the agreement provided taat two conditions
are fulfilled (i) No adverse effects on the labour
situation in Bahrain result from a reversion to the
/previous