مجموعة ٦ / ٦٧ (٦) "حدود جنوب شرق الجزيرة العربية وقطر: امتيازات النفط في الساحل المتصالح" [ظ‎‎١‎٩‎١] (٤٠٢/٣٩٣)

4
*
E, 4734/279/
91 (1934).
E. 5858124291
25 (1934).
i it ..pm- doubtful whether it can be successfully maintained, as
sovereignty, and it seems do despatch No. 594-8 of the 28th June,
is attempted m paragi p , j ; Q no wa y a s ig n of submission to Wahabi
1934, that the is able 1 exa^t such payments argues a
rule. The mere tact t a. ^ anthoritv over the tribes who pay it. This,
considerable Pleasure of con b g ir AlK i e w Ryan, His Majesty’s MinW
w/Xr 1934 Ind it seems in fact difficult to deny that, m the absef of
' S P il^ evidence regarding the exercise of sovereignty in a particular area,
more solid evide ■ ^ » f tribute is an important consideration.
the question of U.. f it mav be said that those territories to the east
. 15 t, T , an d Violet lines of the 1914 Convention which are under
and south ot the 3 j ' 1 d t which no local Arab ruler has a valid claim,
Lth theTercll of effective control over the area in question or on the
s£ ”‘“ 8th “
Ipudf A)S n Gove S rnment are legally entitled to put forwatol a clam, and that
in such cases the pavment of tribute may, in the absence of other indications,
properly be adduJl as evidence of sovereignty. Having established this principle
m judging the Saudi case, it seems appropriate to consider briefly the mam claims
hitherto out forward by the Saudi Arabian Government, their claims to the
territory^dioining the Khor-el-Odeid, an inlet of the Persian Gulf to the south
east of the Qatar peninsula, and to the Jebel Nakhsh, a mountain area to the
south-west of the Qatar peninsula, claims to which the present deadlock m the
frontier negotiations is mainly attributable, as well as Lie claims advanced by
them in regard to the other sections of the frontier.
(B)— The Saudi Claim to the Khor-el-Odeid.
E. 212412581
91 (1934).
E. 2180/279/
91 (1934).
E. 1513/81/
91 (1934).
E. 7615/279/
91 (1934).
16. This is based (a) on historical arguments, and (b) on tribal allegiances
17. An effective refutation of (a) was contained in the note given to Sheikh
Yusuf Yasin by Mr. Rendel after the conversation recorded in the enclosure to
Jedda despatch No. 47 of the 20th March, 1937 (Eastern (Arabia) Print of the
19th April, 1937, Section 1). x\s stated already, the historical arguments put
forward by the Saudi Arabian Government have not much force.
18. As regards (b), the Saudi Arabian Government claim that the tribes
of the Khor-el-Odeid owe allegiance to Ibn Sand. This contention is supported
by some of the available information, e.g., the statement made to Sir T. Eowle
in 1934 by the Sheikh of Qatar to the effect that k £ a neutral zone between Qatar
and Abu" Dhabi extended along the coast and some miles inland from Khor
Odeid to Sabkhat Matti, but that this zone was not recognised by Ibn Sand, wdio
took the revenue from it because he was strong enough to do so (see Sir T.
Fowle’s telegram No. T/98 of the 6th April, 1934, paragraph 3 (c)). The alleged
existence of a £t neutral zone " is also mentioned in paragraph 2 of the enclosure
to the letter No. C. 17 of the 18th January, 1934, from the Political Agent,
Koweit, to Sir T. Fowle. As against this, however, Bahrein confidential despatch
No. C/ 965-1.a/38 of the 12th December, 1934, and its enclosure suggest, on the
strength of assertions by the Sheikh of Abu Dhabi and his family, that Ibn Sand
has no claim to any part of the coast between Qatar and the Musandam peninsula,
which belongs to one or other of the Trucial Sheikhs.
19. The practical justification for Ibn Saud’s claim to the Khor-el-Odeid
is thus at best doubtful. But whatever foundation it might otherwise have had
is weakened by the evidence which can be derived from the attitude of His
Majesty’s Government in the past. Thus in 1878 Sheikh Zaid of Abu Dhabi was
assisted in sending an expedition to exterminate the pirates of Odeid. The
pirates fled before the expedition arrived, but it was made dear that Her
Majesty’s Government regarded the Sheikh of Abu Dhabi as responsible for what
happened at Odeid and recognised that place as his territory. Later, in 1881
Sheikh Yasin-bin-Jhani of Qatar was told, in replv to his enquiries, that Her
Majesty’s Government could not agree to his rebuilding Odeid, ££ as the place
is an appanage of Abu Dhabi. ’ Again, in 1891, when the Ottoman Government
tried to send a mudir to Odeid, diplomatic representations were immediately
made on the ground that Odeid belonged to Abu Dhabi, and the Ottoman Govern
ment abandoned their project in consequence.