Coll 6/19 'Arabia: (Saudi Arabia) Hejaz-Nejd Annual Report.' [‎158v] (317/540)

14
delegates at Sana proposed a settlement whereby Najran and the country north
should belong to Ibn Saud, while “ Waya and southwards ” should belong to the
Imam and the southern frontier “ from inland to the sea ” should remain as it
was. Mr. Zada added that at a meeting two days later the Imam’s delegates
accepted this, “except where it related to the Idrisi territory.” This quali
fication is ambiguous, but, in any case, the Imam is understood to deny that there
was ever any agreement, although the Saudi Government assert that he has
himself invoked it in the past.
(4) States in the South and South-East of Arabia.
54. There have been signs recently of considerable interest on the part of
Hadhramis in the Hejaz in the troubles of their country of origin. As this
interest did not come actively to the notice of the Legation until 1934, the subject
need not be dealt with in this report. It may, however, be mentioned that,
according to information from a good source, Ibn Saud was approached during
the 1933 pilgrimage by a party of Hadhramis from Java, who begged him to go
and restore order in the Hadhramaut. The King is said to have rejected the
appeal on the grounds that it was under British protection.
55. Every pilgrimage seems to bring notables from the Trucial Coast A name used by Britain from the nineteenth century to 1971 to refer to the present-day United Arab Emirates. to
Mecca. The King doubtless maintains some connexions with the sheikhdoms
there through such persons and through his cousin, the Governor of Hasa. There
is, however, no evidence that he abuses this connexion £pr political purposes or
that any significance attaches to the visit to Mecca of even such a personage as
the ex-Sultan of Muscat, who arrived in Jedda on tKe 7th December, 1933,
intending to stay for the 1934 pilgrimage.
56. One more important episode occurred in the autumn, when the Sheikh
of Qatar visited the King at Riyadh. Rumour assigned various reasons for this
excursion. It was most generally attributed to some money transaction between
the two rulers, but the versions of this story are so various that it is impossible
to know whether the sheikh has lent money to the King and cannot get it back
or whether the King was trying to get money out of the sheikh in respect of
the secret subsidy mentioned in paragraph 45 of the report for 1930.
57- It is possible that there are deeper reasons for the interest which the
King and the bheikh of Qatar take in each other. The sheikh, having so far
failed to get His Majesty s Government in the Lnited Kingdom to guarantee
him protection against aggression on his land frontier, may be anxious to make
interest with Ibn Saud. Ibn Saud may wish to direct the sheikh’s oil policy,
foi Qatar, like Hasa, has attracted the interest of the oil magnates. Further
examination of the whole subject must be reserved for the report for 1934, but
it may here be mentioned that the prospect of oil being discovered in these areas
has given rise to important questions as to what is the land frontier of Qatar
what should be considered to be the limit of Ibn Saud’s territory on the eastern
side and whether Qatar and Saudi Arabia should necessarily be regarded as
coterminous. &
(5) Bahrein.
58. The reasons for which Bahrein and Koweit were dealt with under a
single general heading in previous annual reports have lost much of their
cogency. The questions connected with their relations with Saudi Arabia have
become more and more disconnected with each other. Some of those which
presented features of common interest, e.g., the wish of the Saudi Government
to secure an official status for Ibn Saud’s agents in the two sheikhdoms, have
fallen into abeyance. Where the questions mentioned in earlier reports are still
active, the tendency of His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom has
been to treat each on its merits, e.g., any idea of using Bahrein transit dues as
a means of pressure to secure a relaxation of the “ Koweit Blockade ” has been
practically abandoned. The group of “ Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. Questions ” has in fact
disintegrated. ’ ’
59. The only important question affecting the
Arabia and Bahrein in 1933 was that of transit dues.
relations between Saudi
Its previous phases were