'11/5 Negotiations with Ibn Saud regarding Boundaries of Saudi Arabia' [‎182v] (366/430)

4
E. 4734/279/
91 (1934)
E. 5858/2429/
25 (1934)
E. 2124/258/
91 (1934).
E. 2180/279/
91 (1934).
E 1513/81/
91 (1934).
E. 7615/279/
91 (1934).
• seems doubtful whether it can be successfully maintained, as
.n^amTaph ? of Bushire despatch No. 594-S of the 28th June :
1834 that the payment of tribute is in no way a sign of submission to Wahabi
rule The mere fact that Ibn Sand is able to exact such payments argues a
considerable measure of control and authority over the tribes who pa^ it 1 his,
Tleast was the view put forward by Sir Andrew Ryan, His Majesty s Minister
in Seotember 1934 and it seems in fact difficult to deny that, in the absence of
more solid evidence regarding the exercise of sovereignty in a particular area,
the miestion of the payment of tribute is an important, consideration.
T-.' To sum up therefore, it may be said that those territories to the east
and iuth of 'the Blue and Violet lines of the 1914 Convention which are under
no clearly defined sovereignty and to which no local Arab ruler has a valid claim,
either through the exercise of effective control over the area in question or on the
basis of formal engagements with His Majesty's Government already existing in
1927 ind recognising his authority over that area, are territories to which the
Solid? Arabian Government are legally entitled to put forward a claim and that
in s ch cases the payment of tribute may, m the absence of other indications,
properly he adduced as evidence of sovereignty. Having established this principle
in iudgmg the Saudi case, it seems appropriate to consider briefly the mam claims
WWto nut forward by the Saudi Arabian Government, i.e., their claims to the
territory ^.d^oining 1 the'Khor-el Odeid, an inlet of the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. to the south-
east of the Qatar peninsula, and to the Jebel Nakhsh, a mountain area to the
south-west of the Qatar peninsula, claims to which the present deadlock m the
frontier negotiations is mainly attributable, as well as the claims advanced by
them in regard to the other sections ot the fiontier.
(B)-
-The Saudi Claim to the Khor-el-Odeid.
16. This is based (a) on historical arguments, and (h) on tribal allegiances^
17 An effective refutation of (a) was contained m the note given to bheikii
Yusuf Yasin by Mr. Ren del after the conversation recorded in the enclosure to
Jedda despatch No. 47 of the 20th March, 1937 (Eastern (Arabia) 1 rint of the
19th April, 1937, Section 1). As stated already, the historical arguments put
forward by the Saudi Arabian Government have not much force.
18. As regards (6), the Saudi Arabian Government claim that the tribes
of the Khor-el-Odeid owe allegiance to Ibn Sand. This contention's supported
bv some of the available information, e.g., the statement made to Mr I. lowle
in 1934 by the Sheikh of Qatar to the effect that “ a neutral zone between Qatar
and Abu Dhabi extended along the coast and some miles inland from Khoi
Odeid to Sabkhat Matti, hut that this zone was not recognised by Tbn baud, who
took the revenue from it because he was strong enough to do so (see bn .
Fowle’s telegram No. T/98 of the 6th April, 1934. paragraph 3 (c)) The alleged
existence of a “ neutral zone ” is also mentioned m paragraph 2 of the enclosure
to the letter No. C. 17 of the 18th January, 1934, from the Political Agent A mid-ranking political representative (equivalent to a Consul) from the diplomatic corps of the Government of India or one of its subordinate provincial governments, in charge of a Political Agency.
Koweit, to Sir T. Fowle. As against this, however, Bahrein confidential despatcn
No C /965-1.a/38 of the 12th December, 1934, and its enclosure suggest on the
strength of assertions by the Sheikh of Abu Dhabi and his family, that Ihn baud
has no claim to any part of the coast between Qatar and the Musandam peninsu a,
which belongs to one or other of the 1 rucial Sheikhs. , T ri ^ a
19. The practical justification for Ibn Sand’s claim to the Khor-el-Odeia
is thus at best doubtful. But whatever foundation it might otherwise have had
is weakened by the evidence which can be derived from the attitude ot -tii^
Majesty’s Government in the past. Thus in 1878 Sheikh Zaid of Abu Dhabi was
assisted in sending an expedition to exterminate the pirates of Odeid. ine
pirates fled before the expedition arrived, but it was made clear that Per
Majestv’s Government regarded the Sheikh of Ahu Dhabi as responsible ten jk
happened at Odeid and recognised that place as his territory. Later m
Sheikh Yasin-bin-Thani of Qatar was told, in reply to his enquiries, that lie
Majesty’s Government could not agree to his rebuilding Odeid, as the place
is an appanage of Abu Dhabi.” Again, in 1891, when the Ottoman Government
tried to send a mudir to Odeid, diplomatic representations were immediate y
made on the ground that Odeid belonged to Abu Dhabi, and the Ottoman Govern
ment abandoned their project in consequence.