Coll 6/19 'Arabia: (Saudi Arabia) Hejaz-Nejd Annual Report.' [‎243r] (486/540)

13
them to settle in Iraq on the invitation of King Feisal. No decision had been
taken up to the end of 1930 and no necessity arose during the year for represen
tations to Ibn Baud.
35. Only one other matter calls for attention in connexion with the relations
•between Hejaz-Nejd and 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 . It may be dismissed briefly as it began
before 1930 and made no material progress during the year. In August 1928 the
Hejazi Government complained that goods were being imported from Trans
jordan into Nejd without being brought to the proper customs posts and paying
duty. The ensuing correspondence, which was lengthy and somewhat confused,
turned on two things, viz., the refusal by the Hejazi Government of a
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 proposal that trade both ways in goods originating in the respective
countries should be free and their insistence on the fulness of their rights under
article 13 of the Hadda Agreement, which provided inter alia for free transit
trade by caravan through 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 between Syria and Nejd. That article
had been drafted with a view to subsequent arrangements of detail, which have
never been made. There was some room for misunderstanding as to its effect and
there was further misunderstanding on the British side as to what the Nejd
Government were getting at. The latter had been captious throughout and the
final reply of His Majesty’s Government, which was delivered on the 20th April,
1930, was brief to the point of obscurity. The main paragraph expressed
agreement with the Hejazi Government on a point which the latter had not in fact
raised and the last expressed the view that the points of detail raised in the
correspondence could “ be more easily dealt with by the 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 Government
direct.” The Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs not unnaturally asked for
explanations. This necessitated a re-examination of the whole question, which
was still proceeding at the end of December.
35a. No account is given in this section of the questions relative to the
Aqaba and Maan district and the Hejaz Railway. 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 is materially
interested in them, but they are so much matters of high British policy that they
can more suitably be dealt with in the section dealing with the general relations
between Ibn Baud and the British Empire.
(3) Yemen and A sir.
36. It is convenient to deal with these countries together, although the Imam
Yahya of Sa'na is the only really independent ruler in Arabia with whom Ibn Baud
has to concern himself and Ibn Baud’s relations with Asir can no longer be called
foreign. They now present a very close resemblance to the final position between
the tiger and the young lady of Riga who went for a ride on him. The ride seems
to have begun in 1920 when the then Idrisi ruler of Asir concluded a treaty with
Ibn Baud. This treaty does not appear to have been published and little is known
of its contents, but the fact that it determined certain frontiers is established
by the reference to them in a later published treaty concluded at Mecca in
October 1926 between the new Idrisi Seyyid Hasan and Ibn Baud. The latter
treaty was made at the end of a period during which the Idrisi was so squeezed
between the Imam and Ibn Baud that he had to elect between the suzerainty of
one or the other. By the 1926 treaty he placed himself under that of Ibn Baud.
It was defined in somewhat ambiguous language, to judge by the available
translations, as extending to Asir territory within the frontiers laid down in the
earlier agreement in 1920, but it emerged from enquiries made by His Majesty’s
agency An office of the East India Company and, later, of the British Raj, headed by an agent. at Jedda in 1927 that these frontiers had been defined in part only and
that no frontier between Asir and Yemen had been indicated.
37. The suzerainty established by Ibn Baud in 1926 preserved in form the
sovereignty of the Idrisi. It was, nevertheless, sufficiently stringent to enable
Ibn Baud to build up his position in Asir, though he apparently had trouble there
not so much with the Idrisi himself as with recalcitrant tribes, e.g., the Masariha
inland from Jizan, who would appear to have destroyed or expelled a Saudian
garrison and other authorities at Abu Arish in the spring of 1930. That or
similar events, whether inspired or not by the Imam Yahya, may have precipi
tated Ibn Baud’s great political coup, which was so advertised in November that
we can abandon for the moment the recurring phrases “ seems ” and “ would