"ملف ٦/٤ II الحدود الكويتية-العراقية" [و‎‎٨‎٠] (٤٤٠/١٥٩)

ifcu^istry of the interior,
Iraq.
Bagdad, August 20th 1940.
P.S-149.
lly dear Holt,
Please excuse my delay in answering your letter 060/6/40
of 5th June, which we put aside during a rush of urgent work
and was then overlooked. 1 have discussed the matter with you
verbally, but I may as well put down my remarks to complete the file.
1. Agreed.
2. As the notice board has been removed for some years now
we should have to say M Gafwan at which a post and notice
board formerly marked the frontier". But the exact point is
likely to be disputed after so long; indeed the Iraqi reports on
the Political Agent’s recent attempt to re-establish it unilaterally
state that he rfLaced it well to the north of the original position.
A definite distance from a specific palm would therefore have been
simpler, but perhaps both parties will be able to find some
reputable map&hose oath they will accept and so settle the matter.
3. Agreed with corresponding amendment to (2) i.e. ”for
merly stood" for "have been erected".
4. See my letter P-S. 246 of 2nd December, 1937. I think
we should either say "the trijunction of the thalweg of the Khors
Zubair, Shetana and Sabiya as shown on the 1:500,000 map of
1936" or add the co-ordinates as read off that map, or better
still both.
5. With the maps at our disposal we cannot be quite suie that
the straight line would not cut off the tip of the north bank
where it separates the two Khors or even leave Um Qasr in Iraq,
which by tlr terms of the original agreement it must; also
low-water boundaries must be unsatisfactory. It would be hardly
human for the owner of the bank to respect the ownership of the
adjacent water. The "clarification" I would suggest here would
be as follows:
"From the point south of Safwan defined in para 3 the frontier
^ shall run in a straight line to (the point on the high-water line
* due west of) the junction defined in para 4, provided that if
such a line were to cut either bank of the Khors more than once
or were not to leave Um Qasr in Iraq, the line shall be modified
by agreement between the two parties in such a way as to prevent
eithe r c ontingency".
If the words in brackets are accepted neither of the contingencies
seems likely but it might be wise to leave them in nevertheless.
This proposal is intended only to give a good line. It is perhaps
unfortunate that it would give a few extra square yards to Ifcaq
as against the line straight to the junction, and so is likely
to stampede the Kuwait authorities who seem inclined to haggle
over inches; but it would be childish to insert provision for
compensation elsewhere by an equivalent area of equally useless
mud and sand.
Capt.V.Holt C.M.G
Ycurs sincerely,
(s igned)* G. J. EDMONDS.