82
discussions very far, since Fuad Bey Hamza was without definite instructionsfrom the Saʻūdi Government as to King Ibn Saʻūd's desiderata(1). The BritishGovernment, while it said that it would not insist upon its strict rights under theAnglo-Turkish Conventions of 1913 and 1914, emphasized that its willingness towaive its strict legal rights was entirely dependent upon a satisfactory settlementbeing reached on the questions outstanding between the two Governments. FuadBey Hamza, on his side, said that the British reliance upon the Anglo-TurkishConventions had come as a shock to King Ibn Saʻūd. He also complained thatthey had not been referred to, either at the conclusion of the 1915 Treaty, or duringthe negotiations for the Treaty of Jiddah, in 1927, when King Ibn Saʻūd had askedconcerning British relations with the Trucial Shaikhs, and had been furnished withcopies of their treaties, but not of the 1913 and 1914 Conventions. In this connexion, Mr. Rendel pointed out that King Ibn Saʻūd had only asked for the treatieswith Trucial Shaikhs, and that the Blue Line was a matter of notoriety, andappeared on several maps(2).
23. Fuad Bey Hamza also indicated that King Ibn Saʻūd would claim thattribes formerly under his rule should so continue, and that their territories should beincluded in his dominions. He mentioned particularly the Murrah and the Manāsīras tribes which the King claimed to be within this category. Mr. Rendel repliedthat, while there was, perhaps, some reason to consider the Murrah to be closelyconnected with Saʻūdi Arabia, the Manāsīr were of more doubtful allegiance, andwere stated to be largely dependent upon the Shaikh of Abu Dhabi.
24. The London meetings of September, 1934, having proved abortiveowing to Fuad Bey Hamza being without definite instructions as to the SaʻūdiGovernment's statement of its claims, the British Ambassador in Jiddah askedhim in conversations on January 20 and 21, 1935, whether the Saʻūdi Governmentwould produce a precise statement of King Ibn Saʻūd's claims in regard to thedisputed boundaries. Sir Andrew Ryan renewed his request for a precise statementof King Ibn Saʻūd's desiderata on March 1, when Fuad Bey Hamza promised toconsult the King, but said that he could not hope to produce the statement untilafter the King's arrival in Mecca, eight days later. In due course, on April 3, 1935,Fuad Bey Hamza handed Sir Andrew Ryan a Memorandum, written in Arabic,and entitled:
“ Statement regarding the Frontier Line dividing the Saudi Arab Kingdomand Qatar, Abu Dhabi, Debai, Sharjah, Ras-el-Khaima and other Arab Amiratesand Sheykhdoms situated on the Persian Gulf, the Sultanate of Muscat andOman, and the Territories of Hadhramaut and other Arab Sheykhdoms and
Amirates situated in the east, south and south-east of Arabia ”(3).The original of this memorandum is in the Foreign Office Archives(4). The SaʻūdiGovernment took up the position that the Khaur al-'Udaid belonged to King IbnSaʻūd. It, therefore, dealt separately with the question of Saʻūdi Arabia's boundarywith Qatar, and the question of her boundary with the other States of Southeastern Arabia.
25. The two Lines defined in the Saʻūdi Government's Memorandum as beingSaʻūdi Arabia's boundaries, respectively with Qatar and with the States of EasternArabia, are shown in red on Map B. It will be seen from this map that the northernLine—the proposed Qatar boundary—would start on the west coast of Qatar, some15 miles up the bay of Dauhat as-Salwah, and, after running eastwards, for about5 miles, would turn south-eastwards, reaching the east coast some 7 miles northof the Khau al-'Udaid. It would leave the Jabal Dukhan to Qatar, but wouldgive the Jabal Nakhsh, al-Qalail and the Khaur al-'Udaid inlet to Saʻūdi Arabia.The other Line—the proposed boundary with Abu Dhabi and the other EasternState—would start some 16 miles south of the Khaur al-'Udaid and, after runningsouthwards for about 10 miles, would run east-south-eastwards, in a slightlycurving manner, until the intersection of longitude 56°E. and latitude 22°N. Fromthere it would follow longitude 56°E., as far as latitude 19°N., and then run to theintersection of longitude 52°E. and latitude 17°N. whence it would proceed along
(1) For the relevant extracts from the British record of these two meetings, see Annex D, No. 8.(2) See paragraph 13, above.(3) The italics have been added.(4) See Annex D, No. 9.
