'11/5 Negotiations with Ibn Saud regarding Boundaries of Saudi Arabia' [‎182r] (365/430)

■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■Hi
SactS^r^'T,^ and th6 ? audl Alabla “ Government are of little
lelal poll ion is a^’ 1" Htia ^ neral " a PP ears reasonable to hold that the
legal position is as described in paragraph 6 above, and that the criteria
mentioned therein may properly he applied in determining whetLr the Saudi
Arabian Government are entitled to put forward a particular ckim or not
already steted are admislibl^d 7 * ^ SaUdi claims as fulfil ehe conditions
grrmnds on which the S-’ appropriate to consider briefly the specific
grounds on which the Saudi claims are based. These fall roughly under two
heads, viz ancestral ” claims and “ tribal ” claims. Of the former al tint
need be said here is that they have never been properly substantiated and that
in any case the evidence available tends to show tbit they have no le-ml foundation
?n te hi V 6411 ! Tv by ii r . T ' Fowlc - the Poetical fern
l i iwc i v L hl f des P atch No - 594-S of the 28th June 1934 to the
India Office The department of the British Government to which the Government of India reported between 1858 and 1947. The successor to the Court of Directors. , which shows that Ibn Saud has no valid “ ancestral ' claims to • nv
part of Qatar arid the Pmcial Coast, although the important oasis of Baraimi
in the h interland of ihe Trucial Coast A name used by Britain from the nineteenth century to 1971 to refer to the present-day United Arab Emirates. , is a doubtful point. As Sir f Fowle then
pointed out the complexities of Arabian history and of tribal moveme7s make
it impossible to refute in detail every vague ancestral claim which may be put
forward by the Saudi Arabian Government, but it seems to be satisfactonJv
established that no such claim deserves serious consideration. ' ^
12, * *'*! j r i*>al claims, however, need to be examined more closely since
they are really the basis of the whole Saud, case. Briefly, the view put forward
by the Saudi Arabian Government is that, since much of the territory adjoining
he eisian 3ulf to the east of the Blue line is under no regular rule, the status
of any part of that territory must be determined solely on the basis of tribal
allegiances. This view has not been accepted unreservedly by His Maiestv's
Government who have pointed out on more than one occasion (e.g., at the meeting
iTi om w Bey ,?Q* m « T 2 t th Julle ’ 1935; see Eastern (Arabia) Print of
the 25th June, 193.,, Section 3) that, since many Arabian tribes are accustomed
to wander over a very wide area, it would be impossible to base territorial claims
on the extent of those wanderings, or to establish a frontier line solely in
accordance with fluctuating tribal allegiances; and further that a simple allo
cation of tribal areas could not, as the Saudi Arabian Government are sometimes
inclined to maintain replace a territorial frontier. Subject to these reservations
however, it follows from what has already been said earlier in this memorandum
that, it is justifiable for the Saudi Arabian Government to contend that where a
given area is inhabited by tribes the majority of which acknowledge their
allegiance to Ibn Saud, and no other ruler has any effective claim to that territory
it may rightfully be claimed by the Saudi Arabian Government,
13 Moreover, it seems justifiable to contend, as the Saudi Arabian Govern
ment do, that in the absence of other indications the payment of “ zakat ” (a
form of tribute or tax) may be regarded as the factor determining the allegiance
ot a particular tribe. Ihe question to what extent it is admissible to invoke the
payment ot tribute as evidence of sovereignty has already formed the subject of
ioo, aUS . tlV % d \ SCUS f 10n - . Illhis demi-official letter No. C/lol of the 30th March, *
u -i g lr . ^ ow *e maintained, with regard to payments made by certain Aral)
s ei hs, including the Sheikh of Qatar, to Ibn Saud, that these payments could
in no way be regarded as formal tribute, or as constituting a recognition of
ibi) Sand as the overlord of the payers. The observations of Sir T. Fowle referred
however only to payments made to Ibn Saud by the Sheikhs of Qatar and the
1 racial States, whose independence of Saudi Arabia was in any case safeguarded
by tffie special engagements existing between them and His Majesty’s Government
winch were recognised by the Saudi Arabian Government under article 6 of the
treaty of Jedda, Clearly there could be no question of these payments having
involved in any way a recognition of Ibn Sand’s overlordship.
14. In the case of “ zakat ” payments made by local tribal chiefs inhabiting
territory to which no one has a legal claim and over which no ruler exercises anv
eftective authority, the position is, however, somewhat different, since the status
oi those chiefs is nowhere established by treaty and may therefore be taken to
depend on the degree of allegiance given by them to one or other of the recognised
local rulers. Thus there would seem to be some force in the argument that in such
cases the levy of “ zakat,” whether it is called “ blackmail ” or by some other
name, may be regarded as taxation and consequently as providing evidence of
122284—2 ] ° B 2
V 47H4/279/
91 (1934)
5. 3944/77/
91 (1935).
. 2332/279/
91 (1934)