Coll 17/4 'Iraq-Syria & Syria-Transjordan frontier: delimitation' [‎14r] (32/788)

(b) British interpretation,
General: 1
contained in a letter from the Britkh r
tue British Government to the Secretary-
To the Secretary-General.
January 30th, 1932.
«on State tot Foreign Affairs to invite a to ^ ^
and the French Government, regarding the delimitation Tt\e P f ront£betwee' 1 n S 7 t r tr ° m Maiesty ' s G »™nment
2. In view of that resolution, I am to transmit tn f ra<1 an yna '
memorandum (together with eivht rnr.iA C you ’ lor the information of the Council .
Franco-British Convention of^eceX^r “loT:. 1 ’ menti ° n<!d ‘ herei ’' S ) intarprStaVo^LTfSTh?
The Council will no doubt wisb to refer ttn^
m Section 2 of its resolution of December 9th, when thirCommiSoTirset ^ the Commission contemplated
3 - further meiuorundum, contuininor certnin -nrrvrvrxooi ^ • .
tion of 1920, is being prepared and will be transmitted to you°a S soon^pos^ibD aS defined in the C ° nVei1 -
(Signed) G. W. Rendel.
Memorandum on the Interpretation of Article i of the t, ve
.oao, RE r AI1 Ho ro the Bo^olnv 0t Dl! “ ^rd.
adtd, 1 toS'tSTeEro^whrcri'as'fo^owaf* " ™ ’ ° f the Britieh Convent,on of December
and Moan*. 116 “**• ^ ^ »e boundaries of the former vilayets of Diarbekir
On the south-east and south, the aforesaid boundary of the former vilayets southwards as far as
ume an Keui; thence a line leaving m the territory under the French mandate the entire basin of the
M estern Kabur and passing m a straight line towards the Euphrates, which it crosses at Abu Kemal theme
a straight line to Imtar, to the south of Jebel Druse.” ’ tnence
a 2 ‘ ^ OI ^ ventlon makes no mention of a map, and, it is understood, no map was found annexed to the original
document The framers of the Convention, who had no first-hand knowledge of the ground, must, however have used
a map. All external and internal evidence points to the i : 1,000,000 Asia map of 1916. It is understood that this
is not questioned.
3. The Convention must therefore be read in the light of the i : 1,000,000 Asia map of 1916. This map is admit
tedly little more than a sketch-map, and is far from accurate. The application to the ground of any line drawn on this
map is likely to present many difficult problems which must come up for solution at a later stage. They have, how
ever, no connection with the interpretation of the Convention, which must take the form of drawing on the map
used the line which the framers of the Convention intended to describe.
4. The first sector as far as Rumelan Keui offers no difficulty of interpretation. The boundary would follow
the Tigris from the mouth of the Kabur, where the frontier between Iraq and Turkey begins, to a point opposite
Faish Kabur, and thence the administrative boundary marked on the map to Rumelan Keui.
5. The succeeding passage, from the words “thence a line ” to the words “ crosses at Abu Kemal ”, is obscure.
It is not contended that the wording of the Convention absolutely rules out a straight line from Rumelan Keui to
Abu Kemal. There is, however, no reason to doubt that, for the reasons developed in paragraph 6 below, the line
which is described in the Convention, and which the framers intended to describe, is that shown in red on the accom
panying copy from the map of 1916. 2
This line may be more fully described in words as follows:
From Rumelan Keui a curved line running south of the Wady-er-Radd in the general direction west-
south-west and then south-south-west so as to leave in Syria all the drainage-lines running to the Kabur,
after passing between the Lake of Khatuniya, which it leaves to Iraq, and the heads of the two drainage
lines, which it leaves in Syria, the line continues in the same direction to a point on parallel of latitude 36“ N.
immediately to the east of the head of Shaib Abu Hamda, the most southerly of the drainage-lines to the
Kabur shown on the map; from this point a straight line towards the Euphrates to the e m en 1 ,
whence it crosses the Euphrates at right angles to Albu Kemal.
6 .
7 -
The following considerations are adduced in support of the line described above as opposed to the straight line.
(a) It is highly improbable that the framers of the Convention would have drawn a line bisecting
so prominent a feature as the Jabal Sinjar.
/ h\ if a straight line from Rumelan Keui to Albu Kemal had been intended, there would have been
no need to mention the basin of the Kabur, since the map shows the whole of the basin well to the wes
of such a straight line. _
tr\ Furthermore the use of the word “line ” in the phrase referring to the basin of the Kabur an
"straight line " in the’phrase referring to the approach to the Enphrates snpports the v that ae framers
were not describing a line straight throughout its length between Rumelan Kem and Albu Kemal, g
the clumsy wording of the sentence, taken alone, does no exc u e su < .
{d) The line described in paragraph 5 corresponds closely with the actual situation o taming a
of the conclusion of the Convention.
The last sector, a straight line from Albu Kemal to Imtan, presents no difficulties of interpretation.
(c) The French and British Interpretations compared.
The two separate frontier-lines that emerge from ^ se ^^fJ^sXesfnTll probability
in Annex No. i on a reproduction of the map which the negotiators tnemse
employed.
1
2
Document C. i82.i93 2 -^t and erratum.
This map, reproduced in the present document,
constitutes Annex N° I.