Coll 6/66 'Saudi-Arabia: Saudi-Transjordan Frontier' [‎49v] (98/427)

moment, though the complaints against the Amir of Qaf had been serious. The
point he wished to make was that these difficulties were not, in fact, due to the
line followed by the existing boundary, which might, therefore, well be allowed to
remain as it stood until other outstanding questions had been disposed of and the
whole question could be finally and thoroughly settled.
SIR A. RYAN mentioned the three principal places in regard to which there
had been, or were, disputes. They were : Haditha, over which His Majesty’s
Government had, after careful enquiry, frankly admitted that the Saudi Govern
ment’s view was correct; Hazim, over which His Majesty’s Government considered
that the Saudi Government were mistaken; and now Thaniyya Taraif, which
involved so many factors as to make it, in His Majesty’s Government’s view,
necessary to re-examine the frontier as a whole. Apart from these, there were, he
believed, no points in dispute in connexion with the alignment of the frontier, and
he thought, therefore, that the status quo might well be maintained in the
meantime.
FUAD BEY HAMZA replied that the Saudi Government might agree in
general to this suggestion, but that they could not agree as regards Thaniyya
Taraif, which was, he asserted, in Saudi territory.
Mr. RENDER explained again the reasons for which His Majesty’s
Government were convinced that any such assertion was open to serious question.
FUAD BEY HAMZA then proposed that all the existing physical features
shown on the 1918 map as lying to the west of the frontier should be regarded as
falling within Transjordan Used in three contexts: the geographical region to the east of the River Jordan (literally ‘across the River Jordan’); a British protectorate (1921-46); an independent political entity (1946-49) now known as Jordan , and all those shown as lying to the east of it should
be regarded as falling within Saudi Arabia, irrespective of where they might
actually be on the ground. A new frontier could thus be established without
difficulty. If Thaniyya Taraif were shown on the 1918 map as lying to the west
of the Hadda line, the Saudi Government would admit that it was in
Transjordan Used in three contexts: the geographical region to the east of the River Jordan (literally ‘across the River Jordan’); a British protectorate (1921-46); an independent political entity (1946-49) now known as Jordan , but if it were shown as lying to the east of the line, they could not
allow Transjordan Used in three contexts: the geographical region to the east of the River Jordan (literally ‘across the River Jordan’); a British protectorate (1921-46); an independent political entity (1946-49) now known as Jordan to make use of it without special permission and would be
obliged to treat any Transjordan Used in three contexts: the geographical region to the east of the River Jordan (literally ‘across the River Jordan’); a British protectorate (1921-46); an independent political entity (1946-49) now known as Jordan forces frequenting the spot as trespassing on
Saudi territory, with all the consequences that this might imply.
Mr. RENDER, in reply, made it clear that the interpretation of the Hadda
Agreement line and the recognition of the physical features was precisely the
difficulty with which both sides were faced. It was, in fact, extremely hard to
know where that line lay on the ground. He had already explained the difficulty
of identifying the physical features. So long as there was any doubt on this
point, it was impossible merely to draw a frontier on the basis of the features
shown on the 1918 map.
Mr. MARCORM indicated with a sketch the type of difficulty which would
seem likely to arise if this criterion were adopted. He drew a diagram showing
four imaginary physical features, numbered in order 1 , 2, 3 and 4 . He assumed
that an accurate map might well have the effect of altering the position of these
features so that the numbers ran, for example, 1 , 3 , 4 and 2. It might be
possible, in the first case, to draw a line which would place features 1 and 3 to
the west and 2 and 4 to the east of a frontier, but the second case would wholly
alter the alignment of the dividing line. A frontier based on the position of
each feature as shown on the 1918 map might appear reasonable on the 1918
map, but the same principle might produce a hopelessly tortuous and impracti
cable frontier if the relative positions of the features were shifted.
FR^AD BEY HAMZA then proposed as an alternative that the frontier
should be fixed purely by the points of latitude and longitude given in article 1
of the Hadda Agreement, irrespective of the physical features. He said that
the Saudi Government would willingly agree to this method, and he wished to
put it forward as a definite proposal.
Mr. RENDER pointed out that this would not give effect to the Hadda
Agreement. Article 1 of that agreement specifically mentioned the 1 : 1 , 000,000
££ International map (i.e., the 1918 map) as the relevant map, and for this and
other reasons {e.q., the reference to the projecting edges of the Wadi A seasonal or intermittent watercourse, or the valley in which it flows. Sirhan) it
was clear that the frontier was intended to approximate as closely as possible,
in relation to the physical features, to the Hadda Agreement line as plotted on