CONFIDENTIAL territorial waters, and be coupled with Article 4, to safeguardthe position over Sirri; or that the line should stop at least12-miles west of Sirri. This might be at Point 1l in theIranian draft. ZIf the Iranians reject this we could suggest,with some regret but as a simple way of avoiding the wholeissue in a way which we believe would involve no embarrassment for Iran, confining the agreement to Qatar and Abu Dhabi on our side. The eastern limit would then be expressed as "theeasternmost point of the northern frontage of the continentalshelf which appertains to Abu Dhabi".) Article 2 5. The first sentence of this Article may be superfluous in the light of my comments on Article 1. The rest of the Articlereproduces what we had proposed putting in the Agreed Minute, Flag Ca draft of which was sent to Mr. Zelli on 3 February. We do notconsider that undertakings concerning future negotiations areappropriate in an Agreement which will be published and eventuallyregistered with the United Nations. Furthermore, if theAgreement is to cover Qatar and Abu Dhabi only, the disputedislands are in fact claimed by States not covered by theAgreement. Even if Sharjah, which claims Sirri and Abu Musa,were covered by the Agreement, Ras al-Khaimah, which claims theTunbs, would not be.]Article 3 6. This Article substantially reproduces Article 3 of the previous draft except in paragraph (b) which refers to "Co ordination and unitization" of operations and omits thereference to the apportionment of proceeds. Our continentalshelf agreements with Norway and the Netherlands both refer tothe apportionment of proceeds (in the case of the latter ofcosts also) which seeing no objection to the Iranian proposal,we should like the reference to apportionment of proceeds /(and CONFIDENTIAL
