File 87/1926 Pt 2 'Arabia: Bin Saud: Relations with H.M.G. Revision of Treaty.' [‎520v] (728/840)

8
be called up, I was able to persuade Ibn Sa‘ud to recede from k*
iormer position and accept the point of view of the ‘Iran cl, hlS
(Article 8). I Rented, howler, to insert a clauS feTo!
whereby the two Governments undertake to negotiate an agreemen
for the extradition of common criminals. Ibn Sa'ud \v ,
prevailed upon to accept the proposal for the imposition of guarar, 0
tees, originally suggested in Colonial Office telegram No 111
the 14th January, 1924,* but rejected by the Ne^l delegates at he
Kuwait Conference, and a clause to that effect waq ind l l
(Article 9). Article 2 provides machinery for the effective punishment
of raiders and the restitution of loot taken in future raids - while
Articles 3 and 4 contain stipulations for restricting the movements
ol tribes other than lawful migrations for purposes of grazinp-
Lastly, Articles 11 and 12 refer to the language and the name of the
Agreement. ’ u
Language.
17. In view of the fact that this Agreement will be implemented by
two Arabic-speaking States, I thought it proper to accept that it
should be drawn up in Arabic, and that the Arabic text should be the
only valid one. The English translation, which is attached to the
Arabic original (Annexure 11), was prepared by Mr. Antonius and
is certified by him as being an exact rendering.
Date of Effect.
18. 1 he Bahra Agreement is supplemented by an exchange of
letters bearing on three different points. The first (Annexure 12)
concerns the date on which the Agreement comes into effect, and
comprises a letter from me to Ibn Sa‘ud informing him that the
Agreement would come into force on the date of ratification by the
‘Iraq Government, and a letter of acknowledgment from him.
Correspondence about Refugee Tribes.
19. The second (Annexure 13) comprises Memorandum No. 4 from
Ibn Sa'ud, dated the 19th October, 1925, in which he puts on
record his conviction that the only effective w r ay of ensuring peace
on the border lay in the admission of his claim for the extradition of
refugee tribes; and repudiates, at any rate by implication, respon
sibility for disturbances which might occur in the future as a result
of his claim not having been admitted. To this memorandum I
replied, on the 20th October, 1925,t in terms refuting His Highness’
arguments and hinting that responsibility for future disturbances
would be determined according to the loyalty or disloyalty of his
co-operation.
liquidation of past Raids.
20. The third exchange of letters (Annexure 14) refers to the
settlement of claims arising from past raids. In this question there
seemed to be only two alternative methods of settlement: either a
final liquidation based on an actual reckoning of the loot taken and
the losses sustained, or a general provision laying down the principles
and the procedure of a liquidation. I adopted the latter alternative
1585/24; not printed.
f Annexure 18.