Coll 6/65 'Relations between Saudi-Arabia and the Yemen.' [‎307r] (613/917)

THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF HIS BRITANNIC MAJESTY’S GOVERNMENT
EASTERN (Arabia).
oo
May 14, 1934.
CONFIDENTIAL.
Section 2.
v.
1934
[E 3101/79/25]
No. 1.
Sir A. Ryan to Sir John Simon.—(Received May 14.)
(No. 115.)
Sir,
Jedda, April 19, 1934.
WITH reference to my despatch No . 104 of the 13th April, I have the honour
to submit a further report on the Saudi-Yemen situation. It must be even more
meagre than usual, as I have had no personal contact with the Saudi Government
since that date. They may be too busy; they may have too little to tell to make
it worth telling; or they may be holding off me owing to the imbroglio oyer the
Royal slave, who took refuge in the Legation on the 11th April and who is still
undisposed of.
2. I enclose a translation of a communique issued in the Umm-al-Qura of the
13th April. It merely confirmed what Sheikh Yussuf Yasin had told me the
previous day, as recorded in my telegram N o. 6 0 of the 12th April. You will
observe that the Saudi Government give in 'their communique the text of the
Imam’s telegram to the King, one phrase in which is completely obscure (that
relating to the Yam territory); but give an account only of the King’s reply.
Sheikh Yussuf Yasin had followed the same procedure in his conversation with me.
The account he gave me of the King’s telegram was similar to that in the
communique, except in one particular, which I have not thought it worth while
to telegraph. The sheikh mentioned the “release of hostages” as one of the
King’s conditions. The communique refers more explicitly to hostages taken in
the mountains, i.e., the Faifa-Beni Malik area, and adds that the King demanded
that the Imam should cease to concern himself with the people in that area.
3. No further war news has appeared in the press, except a short announce
ment in the Saut-ul-Hijaz of the 16th April, a translation of which I also
enclose.^) The most definite statement in it is that the last of the forts at Haradh
has fallen. Mr. Philby, who gave me the same news said that the Yemeni officer
commanding had escaped. He stated that the position at Baqim was unchanged,
3 I <10 the enclosure in my printed despatch No . 102 o f the 11th April), as it commanded
the approach to the disputed mountain area.
4. I still have no confirmation of Mr. Philby’s further statement (see my
telegram No. 62 of the 16th April) that the King received on the 14th April a
telegram from the Imam agreeing to all his demands. My general impression is
that Ibn Saud, having embarked on the war, is not very eager to call it off. If he '
finds himself in a strong position, he may even have some idea of asking for an
indemnity, a possibility foreshadowded in a report from Koweit, dated the
1st March, a copy of which was forwarded by the Political Resident A senior ranking political representative (equivalent to a Consul General) from the diplomatic corps of the Government of India or one of its subordinate provincial governments, in charge of a Political Residency. to the India
Office on the 7th March. I have heard no reference to this here during the recent
phase, but the general tone of the inspired press has been determined. Thus, on
the 13th April, the Umm-al-Qura had an article referring to foreign reports of the
Imam’s strength. According to these reports, said the writer The lowest of the four classes into which East India Company civil servants were divided. A Writer’s duties originally consisted mostly of copying documents and book-keeping. , he could mobilise
from 50,000 to 100,000 fighting men. The Saudis knew that he could in fact
muster twice that number ; that he had arms left behind by the Turks and collected
from other sources; and that he had gold and silver galore. Yet they must defend
their frontiers and believed that God would give them the victory, because they
were neither unjust nor aggressors.
5. I am awaiting to-morrow’s Umm-al-Qura before telegraphing further,
on the chance of its containing something more than the single definite fact
recorded in paragraph 3 above. In the meantime, I turn again to subsidiary
matters.
6. The Amir Feisal left Jedda for the south in the small hours of the
morning on the 15th April. His passage through this town was exceedingly
unostentatious. Before he left, it was announced that his brother Khalid, a mere
but that the Saudis attached importance to the occupation of Bab-al-Hadid (see
( l ) Not printed.
. *
26
21 JUN, -I.M
[106 t>—2]