File 1855/1904 Pt 9 'Koweit:- Relations with Turkey. Sheikhs claim to Bubiyan, Warba & Umkasr' [‎218v] (38/228)

clear and uncompromising that the island has never been of any use to anybody
and no rights of ownership would appear to have ever been exercised there. It
would seem therefore to depend mainly on geographical considerations and the
question may be posed thus : “ Is Warba an offshoot of Bubiyan and does there
fore the ownership of Warba island follow that of Bubiyan ? ” or “ Is Warba an
offshoot of the mainland and does the ownership pertain to whoever can establish
his claim to the mainland?” Sheikh Mubarak maintains that the mainland
swamp between Fao and the Khor Zubair is his property, but in his capacity of
Turkish subject, paying revenues to the Turkish Government. The Sheikh
states that there is incontrovertible proof of this fact in the deed of settlement
between himself and the sons of his murdered brethren, in which the boundaries
are clearly laid down to be, to the south and west, the sea, the Khor Abdulla,
and the creek. This creek he contends to be the Khor Zubair, explored in 1907
by a survey party from R.I.M.S. Investigator. The Sheikh declares that there
is no other creek between Fao and Khor Zubair and, however this may be, and I
am inclined to doubt it, the mention of Khor Abdulla would go far to support his
contention that the creek in question lies far to the westward.
Bubiyan island on the other hand would appear to be as clearly the property
of the Sheikhs of Koweit under God, as one of the Awazim witnesses quaintly
put it.
There remains the coast line from Umm Gasar to Sabiya. Sheikh Mubarak
lays claim to Umm Gasar on the ground that the old fort, marked on the charts,
was erected by one Ahmed bin Rizk in the time of his grandfather, Jabir as
Subah, and that the original name of the place is Bahaith, that the name of the
place was changed by the Bedouin to Umm Gasar by the fact of the erection of
the fort—the term fort is perhaps rather a misnomer, as any hut is termed Gasar by
the Bedouin—in the time of his ancestor by the same Ahmed bin Rizk who was
undoubtedly a Koweit subject, and whose descendants still live in his house here
in Koweit. It was this same Ahmed bin Rizk who dug the Umm Gasar wells.
Another proof to which Sheikh Mubarak attaches importance is the presence of
an island, called Jazirat as Suf or Wool island, immediately opposite Umm
Gasar, where the Koweit Bedouins used to wash their wool for market. The
Turkish erection of a fort at Umm Gasar was an encroachment that has never, so
far as I am aware, been acquiesced in by the British Government and is still a
grievance with Sheikh Mubarak. From Umm Gasar down the coast I can myself
testify without hesitation to the fact that the land is regarded as the grazing
ground of the Koweit Arabs and that Sheikh Mubarak’s will throughout the
region is law.
6. To sum up, I venture to record the opinion that Sheikh Mubarak’s claim
to the ownership of Warba island is a very strong one, and that the general
considerations recorded above are worthy of credit and could be established with
little trouble. I regard the private ownership of Warba island as undoubtedly
vested in Sheikh Mubarak as, on the north private proprietor of the coast line,
proved so by deeds recorded in a Turkish court of law. The proofs to the
ownership of Umm Gasar would have to be examined and the considerations
advanced by Sheikh Mubarak will undoubtedly have great weight, as will also his
afe/acA? occupation of the western bank of the Khor Sabiya, as evidenced by
the old settlements of Araihjiya, Hogaija and Sabiya, the numerous wells dug
by Koweit Araibdar and the actual status quo i as evidenced by the grazing
rights of Koweit Araibdar and the Sheikh’s authority throughout this tract.
The analogy of Bubiyan, which I regard as undoubtedly Koweit property and
at least as independent of Turkish control as Koweit itself, will have great weight
in deciding the ownership of Warba island and the only point that admits of
doubt is the extent to which Sheikh Mubarak’s right of ownership may be limited
by Turkish sovereignty.