File 57/1928 Pt 4 'Iraq-Nejd Relations: Mission of Sir G. Clayton to Ibn Saud.' [‎324v] (646/1364)

even went so far as to say that without the inclusion of such a
provision no extradition agreement would be acceptable. When
they were informed of the final view of the ‘Iraq Government, the
King had already gone to Mecca, and it is therefore not known how
he will accept the decision. In any case, they appeared to hold
the view that the extradition agreement should be concluded at the
same time as the Bon Voisinage An agreement or treaty based on principles of 'good neighbourliness', often signed between countries which share borders. Agreement, to which reference is
made later in this memorandum, so that it is unlikely that any
immediate result will be reached.
2. The Najd representatives attached great importance to the
surrender of tribesmen who committed an extraditable offence
in the neighbouring territory and either remained there or sought
refuge there in order to escape punishment at the hands of their
own Government. The ‘Iraq representatives, after reference to
Baghdad, submitted a draft which limited the offences to that of
raiding. The Najd representatives’ for a long time insisted on
including this matter in the extradition agreement, but eventually
consented that Sir Gilbert Clayton should address a letter to
His Majesty the King in the sense of the ‘Iraq draft.
3. During the negotiation of the Bahra Agreement His Majesty
the King had pressed strongly that each Government should under
take, at the request of the other Government, to return any tribe
or portion of a tribe or party of individuals who might seek refuge
in the territory of the other Government. The ‘Iraq Government
did not at the time agree and Article 4 of the Bahra Agreement was
drafted to meet its views. At the first meeting, on the 12th May,
1928, the Najd representatives stated that they held to their former
views. But when they realised that a modification of the Bahra
Agreement was involved, and after reference to His Majesty the
King, they shifted their ground and said that they only asked for
the return of criminals. Since this meant the surrender of tribesmen
for political as well as for non-political crimes, no progress was
made ; but it is possible that, at some later date, when relations
are less strained and an agreement on the question of the tribes
whose nationality is in dispute has been reached, the original proposal
of His Majesty the King may be conveniently adopted, since action
could be taken under the terms of the Residence Law and without
recourse to an extradition agreement.
4. The question of the disputed tribes was discussed at some
length, but without result.
(a) Shammar Najd.
The Najd representatives were informed that the
Shammar Najd, who had come into ‘Iraq in 1921, had
automatically become ‘Iraqi subjects under the ‘Iraq
Nationality Law, but that the ‘Iraq Government put no
obstacles in the way of those who wished to return to Najd.