مجموعة ٦/ ٦٦ "المملكة العربية السعودية: حدود السعودية-شرق الأردن" [و‎‎٤] (٤٢٧/٧)

THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF HIS BRITANNIC MAJESTY’S GOVERNMENT
A . “
L
PZ. 1
EASTERN (General).
1311
. 1940 j
January 12, 1940.
CONFIDENTIAL.
^ (15803)
Section 1.
[E 3/3/25] Copy No. 1 r) S
SECRET.
Ibn Saud’s Claim to A kaba and Maan.
[An explanatory map is attached; for other maps which may be useful in this
connexion, see page 18 of the Report of the Royal Commission on Palestine
(1937 : Cmd. 5479), and the map attached to the Foreign Office memorandum
entitled “ The Frontiers between Transjordan and Nejd and Transjordan
and the Hejaz ” (Cfl. 15789).]
AMONG the territorial questions in dispute, though not in active dispute,
between His Majesty’s Government and the Saudi Arabian Government, is a
claim by Ibn Saud, which he has inherited from King Hussein of the Hejaz, to
the districts of Akaba and Maan in what is now Transjordan.
2. In considering this claim from the legal aspect there are two main points
to be borne in mind :—
(1) The historical and administrative position of Akaba and Maan in the
Ottoman Empire.
(2) Ihe manner in which the question of sovereignty has been affected by
conquest, occupation and administration, and by certain measures of
Allied and British policy, during and since the War of 1914-18.
3. The position as regards (1) can be stated quite briefly. In 1886 the Sanjak
of Maan (which included Akaba) was transferred from the Ottoman Vilayet of
Syria to the Ottoman Vilayet of the Hejaz. In 1894 it was restored to the
Vilayet of Syria, and remained part of that vilayet until after the outbreak of
the Great War. In 1915 the Vilayet of Syria was extended southward so as to
include portions of the Vilayet of the Hejaz down to Wejh and El Ala, the line
between these two points marking the recognised northern limits of the Hejaz in
the old sense of the Holy Land of Islam. That this line is the boundary of the
Holy Land can be confirmed from history and is of importance as providing a
refutation of the argument sometimes put forward (see paragraph 15 below) that
Maan and Akaba should rightly belong to “ the Hejaz,” because they are part
of the Holy Land. In 1916 the Turkish Government, for reasons of wartime
expediency, enlarged the Sanjak of Medina so as to include Akaba. No other
administrative change seems to have been made by them before the conclusion of
hostilities. Historically, therefore, Syria would appear to have, if anything a
somewhat stronger claim to Akaba and Maan than has the Hejaz "
4. The position is more difficult as regards (2), since the history of the
disputed districts after the revolt of the Shereef of Mecca (afterwards
King Hussein of the Hejaz) in 1916, is very complicated. In 1917 the Shereef
captured Akaba from the Turks, and his troops remained in effective occupation
Oa the place until 1919. Although it appears that the British authorities had
at the time no intention of committing themselves as to the future status of
Akaba, and indeed considered that it should remain in British hands after the
war it also appears that it was thought impolitic to emphasise to the leader of
town ^ reVOlt at that Stage th6 temporary nature of his own occupation of the
n 5 - ^. fte ^ 1 the the conquered territories were divided bv
General Sir Edmund Allenby into various spheres. Akaba was not at the time
specifically included m the provisional area known as “Occupied Enemv
Territory (East) ; Maan may or may not have been intended to fall within thn'f
area. On the other hand, Sir Edmund Allenby was, in January 1918 given bv
His Majesty s Government supreme authority as far south as ’ the line
[805 m—1]
B