File 6499/1920 Pt 1 'KOWEIT AFFAIRS: KOWEIT-NEJD BOUNDARY DISPUTE; LOCAL UNPOPULARITY OF SHEIKH' [‎140r] (273/294)

a
15. (I'-to)
different from what it was when Captain Shakespear wrote
the above, and Shaikh Salim’s influence can in no respect
he compared with that of his father. This is no doubt
chiefly due to the general trend of events - e.g. the
adoption of Ikhwanism by the Mutair has naturally re
oriented them towards Riyadh-, but also, in part, to
Shaikh Salim’s parcimoneous method of dealing with the
tribes. ‘file fact remains that he has not the authority
that his father had, and that, according to the standard
mentioned in para 3, Ibn Sa’ud has a very valid claim
to the southern portion of the territory allotted to
Kuwait in the Anglo-Turkish Agreement of 1913.
5. In short, Ibn Sa’ud apx->ears to base his claim on the
unwritten law of the desert, while Shaikh Salim bases his
on a document as would a civilised state. The question
of whose claim* we would prefer to see satisfied, or whose,
if eithers, we should support would seem to depend largely
upon our general policy for Arabia as a whole. From a
local point of view, however, the following points appear
v/orthy of consideration:-
(a) Ibn Sa’ud is better able to control the tribes in,
at any rate, the southern part of the territory under
dispute th£n is Shaikh Salim, and for that teason should
be recognised.: as ruler of it.
(b) It may be argued that the Anglo-Turkish Agreement of
1913 was drawn up to protect the interests of Kuwait
against aggression and interference on the part of Turkey,
and that as Turkey has ceased to be a political factor ixlx
in this part of the world, the whole argument xias ij^so
facto become null and void.
(c) On the other hand., local opinion attaches very great
importance to the fact that by the Anglo-Turkish Agreement
of 1913 we did recognise the frontier in question, and to
repudiate it now would undoubtedly be looked upon as a
breach of faith and a sign of weakness on our part, and