The Southern Boundary of Qatar and the Connected Problems. Report by J G Laithwaite dated 26 Jan 1934 and Appendix dated 27 Feb 1934 [‎1v] (2/10)

2
The Anglo-Turkish Convention of July 1913.
5. Discussion over the years 1911-13 between the Turkish Government and
His Majesty's Government on the various matters in dispute between them in the
Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. area culminated in the latter year in the signature of two Conventions
defining inter alia the eastern limits of Turkish authority in Arabia. Fhe Convention
of 29th July 1913, which defined the eastern boundary of Nejd, is alone relevant for
the present purpose. Under that Convention, which, though reference is made to it
in the ratified Anglo-Turkish Convention of 9th March 1914, was never itself ratified,
the eastern boundary of the Turkish Sanjaq of Nejd was defined by a bine line on
the map running due south from the head of the bay opposite Zaqnuniyeh Island in
the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. to the 20th parallel of latitude in the Central Arabian Desert. The
text of the relevant article is given in section 11 of the Appendix attached to this Note.
Its wording (" une ligne . . . separera le Nedjd de la presqu'ile d'El Katr. Les
limites du Nedjd sont indiquees par une ligne bleue . . . ") would justify the
contention that the blue line was at once the eastern frontier of Nejd and the western
frontier of Qatar. But there are definite objections to adopting this view. In the
first place, there is nothing to show that this was, in fact, the intention of His
Majesty's Government at the time when the Convention was concluded, or that they
had any object beyond limiting the eastern boundary of the Turkish possessions in
this area. Secondly, there is no evidence of any claim to suzerainty by Qatar so far
P.Z. 299/34. to the west or so far to the south. Thirdly, the Resident's telegram of 11th January
1934, T. 19, emphasises the absence of control by the Sheikh of Qatar over the interior
of his State (and a fortiori over regions so remote from Dohah as are now under
consideration). Fourthly (though this by itself is probably not of serious importancej
the position vis-a-vis Ibn Sand is to some extent compromised, as explained below,
at any rate as regards the Barr-al-Qarah, by the line fixed by Sir Percy Cox in 1922.
Fifthly, it is arguable that even in a formal document such as the 1913 Convention,
the fact that the blue line is spoken of separating Nejd from the Qatar Peninsula,
need not be regarded as determining the boundary of Qatar. The Qatar Peninsula
was the closest prominent geographical feature and the nearest adjoining Arab political
entity on the mainland, and a reference to it for descriptive purposes was not unnatural.
Finally, there is much to be said for giving no avoidable extensions to the boundaries
of Qatar, even if the consequence is that we have to deal with an area of indeterminate
ownership between those boundaries and the blue line.
Line indicated in 1922 by Sir P. Cox to Ibn Saud and Major Holmes as the Eastern
Limit of any Oil Concession in respect of Hasa.
6. One more incident of importance should be recorded before coming to the
latest evidence as to the view held by the Sheikh of Qatar as to his southern
boundary. The incident is that referred to in Colonel Dickson's letter of 4th July
1933, No. 143, to the Political Resident A senior ranking political representative (equivalent to a Consul General) from the diplomatic corps of the Government of India or one of its subordinate provincial governments, in charge of a Political Residency. , copies of which were received under the
Political Resident A senior ranking political representative (equivalent to a Consul General) from the diplomatic corps of the Government of India or one of its subordinate provincial governments, in charge of a Political Residency. 's express letter of 18th December 1933, No. 1934 S., when Sir
P.Z. 180/34 Percy Cox, who was then High Commissioner for Iraq, in a discussion at Oqairin 19-JJ
with Ibn Saud, then Sultan of Nejd, and Major Holmes, warned both the Sultan
and Major Holmes that the Sultan could grant no concession, and Major Holmes
receive none from him, in respect of the Principality of Qatar, and drew on a map
a line running from Djau-ed-Dukhan to Dohat-as-Salwa, which, he indicated, must
represent the eastern boundary of any concession granted by Ibn Saud in respect
of Hasa. Such a line, as will be seen from the map, excludes the whole Qatar
Peninsula (and incidentally a substantial area lying to the west of the blue line
of the Anglo-Turkish Convention). It also includes in Hasa an area to the east ol the
blue line of the Anglo-Turkish Convention. It should, however, be noted that while
it constituted a definite indication of the High Commissioner's view as to the eastern
boundary of Hasa, it in no way specifically defined the boundaries of Qatar save in so
far as Qatar might be regarded as marching with Hasa and Nejd, or might be
regarded as having been granted a western frontier bounded by the blue line of the
1913 Convention at the time when that Convention was concluded.' 5
Busliire 7. The statement reported in Bushire Memorandum No. 947 S. of 20th December
Memo. 947S. 1922 to have been made by Sir P. Cox that Ibn Saud had agreed with Sir P. Cox, in
1922, that the boundary line between Nejd and Qatar should follow a line running
P.Z. 464/ ^ lie south from the end of the bay south of Bahrein Island and just east of Mabak as
t Sir Percy Cox's comments on this incident are contained in the Note dated 27th February 1934,
printed as Appendix IV to this Memorandum.