'11/5 Negotiations with Ibn Saud regarding Boundaries of Saudi Arabia' [‎181v] (364/430)

_ r * o: R ivTaiestv’s Government in this question has since
5. The policy ?f His ! ‘3 > in the 0 f the legal position
been that, while willing to shap ^ a settlement which would
disclosed 1 " ^ r f ^,,,1 U,e frontier considerably to the east and south of the
have the effect ot shitting rn ^ a matter 0 f tactics, not to cease when
necesSry toa^rt in public or in a negotiation that, pending such a. settlement,
the Blue and V'olet Inform ^ follows from what has been said
6. On astr ct vie [ 1 ^ ^ the of the Blue line to which none
‘r ?r a w!s h Arab S have an effective title may properly be acquired by
t 1 ' 6 rhn the other hand, where a local sheikh can put forward a reasonable
Ihn Sand. On it such territory may be deemed to be legally his,
claim to a Piece ol te c tion jbn Saud cannot base any claims to
since, in virtue of the l»140on ^ ^ ((f affail . s exi8t1ng before 1914. He
territory beyond the Bh • au j re< j all( | exercised since that date,
can only base them onacua q thus st ated is further reinforced by
jS 'i.»«- pa P er
Ibn Saud undertook— . , ^ •, .
“To maintain friendly and peaceful relations with koweit and
Bahrein and with the Sheikhs of Qatar and the Oman coast the
Tracia^'Sheikhs], who are in special treaty relations with H.s Britanmc
Majesty’s Government.’
ft Tt is the view of His Majesty’s Government that, by recognising their
£ mmvurn 0t ‘ h * Z. n i cT«. ta«d.,i» have
difficulty ^^r'deCd ThfquLtln is whether the sheikhs are legally
pntiSetMo C those y territories which^ though never clearly defined, have ten
entitled to n ' rt ^ R ‘ u ” , falline within their dominions, even when
commonly regarded to those territories and have never
they have in f f°‘ . th( .m If the tribes which inhabit those
S^es“L e ^i““hor^ of Ibn Sand the further question arises
whether the Saudi Arabian Government are precluded from putting loiwa
by article 6 of the Treaty of Jedda. It is difficult to show that they are 80
80 P 9 C ’The Saudi Arabian Government do not it must lie said, accept even
Hip moderate view of the legal position described in paragraph 4. In the tint
n^TC deny that thev are'bound by the 1914 Convention at all. I hey
maintain that this convention was concluded without the knowledge 01 conse
(■ ii , g au( j w ho had, by the time the two conventions were signed, succeedet
in excelling ah traces of Ottoman control or influence from the territories
adioinine the Blue and Violet lines on the west and north, with a 1 <w pr
which His Majesty’s Government themselves recognised during the Great Wai
to tea usurper and an oppressor of the Arab race. Since, however Ibn Sand
himself later in 1914 concluded a treaty formally recognising Ins (le P elldc ^
on the Ottoman Government, the Saudi contention would seem to ha\e little iea
ins ificaS and there can be little doubt that the 1914 Convention is, m feck
Gaily binding on Ihn Saud in his capacity of successor to the Ottoman
Government (see paragraph 4 (iij and (iii) above). , , . • i ^ 4 .i ip
10 Secondly^ the Saudi Arabian Government contend that article 6 of tte
Treaty of Jedda did not commit them to recognise any given frontiers claimed
by the Arab sheikhs, a fortiori in cases where those frontiers had never »ee
clearly defined This argument has considerably more force than the one
mentioned above, since a modification of the frontiers of Qatar an d the Tr^al
Sheikhdoms need not affect the special relations of His S .,G arti cle 6
with those States. But at least it appears justifiable to maintain that art
of the Treaty of Jedda committed the Saudi Arabian Government to recognising
the sovereignty of the Arab rulers over territories which had previously forme
the subject of special agreements with His Majesty s Goveminenk a h. d
been recognised bv the latter in or before 1927 as falling within the dominions ot
those rulers. As will be seen later, this point is particular y relevant in the
case of the Saudi claim to the territory adjoining the Khor-el-Odeid. In ot
cases the varying interpretations given to article 6 of the lieaty oi » “ .