Foreign Relations of the United States, 1951, The Near East and Africa, Volume V

NE Files: Lot 58 D 332: “Saudi Arabian Boundaries”

Memorandum of Conversation, by Robert Sturgill of the Office of Near Eastern Affairs¹

confidential

[Washington,] September 25, 1951.²

Subject: The August Conversations in London Between Prince Feisal and the British Foreign Office.

Participants:	Aramco—J. Terry Duce, Executive Vice President
	Judge Manley O. Hudson, Advisor on International Law
	Richard Young, International Law Counsel to SAG
	George W. Ray, Jr., Legal Counsel
	Donald Noble, Assistant Legal Counsel
	OIR/GE—Sophia A. Saucerman
	U/FW—Fred C. Taylor
	PED—Robert H. Eakens
	L/NEA—John Maktos
	BNA—William L. Hamilton
	NE—G. Lewis Jones
	Richard Funkhouser
	Fred H. Awalt
	Robert Sturgill

Summary:

Mr. Jones opened the meeting by expressing the Department’s gratification that so much progress was apparently made during the talks in London.³ Mr. Bay said that he went to Taif July 7 to meet with Prince Feisal at which time Feisal requested copies of everything in great detail pertaining to the history of the boundary disputes. This material was prepared by Judge Hudson and George Rentz, and was delivered to His Royal Highness in Paris just prior to the London meeting.

Judge Hudson emphasized that neither he nor Mr. Young had ever asked the SAG to seek any particular boundary, but had merely provided the legal position on claims advanced by the SAG.

With reference to the island disputes, Judge Hudson said that two years ago he had suggested that the SAG place markers on all islands it claimed to substantiate its claim to them. He said that none of the islands involved, except Maqta, was previously claimed for Kuwait in the 1913 or 1923 international discussions. In 1949⁴ and during the recent London conversations the British made further claims on these islands to include Farsi, Arabi, Kurain, Karan, Maqta, Harkus, Janah and Juraid. The UK receded from these claims one by one, however, until only Farsi remained, and no grounds for this claim were offered.

Shifting to the islands in dispute between Saudi Arabia and Bahrein, Judge Hudson said the British claimed both North and South Bainah, whereas the SAG offered to split 50–50 on the two islands based on proximity, the SAG to take North and Bahrein to take South Bainah. With regard to the shoals, the Judge stated that the British ignored the logic of proximity by claiming Fasht Abu Saafa because a possible oil structure existed in the area, and offered Rennie Shoals to Saudi Arabia.

At this point Mr. Young described the British and SAG methods of establishing a median line. The British line is predicated upon a prior delimitation of territorial waters. The Saudis offered a more direct and practical method which involved drawing straight lines from the nearest opposite points in the two territories where sovereignty was not disputed. The mid-points of these lateral lines were then joined in a series of straight line segments which formed the proposed median line. Little variation occurred between the lines determined by these two methods, but the Saudi Arabian proposal had the double advantage of following straight rather than curved lines and could be determined on the basis of points not in dispute.

Mr. Young said Prince Feisal had not wanted Judge Hudson or Saba Habasha Pasha with him. Rentz went along to translate and he (Young) participated only because he happened to be in London on other business and was asked to do so. He said it was his impression that the SAG was much more familiar with the problem than the British and that Feisal’s attitude was constructive and moderate while the British were rather pedestrian and unimaginative. But both sides seemed to have a disposition to settle. He also said the water boundary between the Kuwait Neutral Zone and Saudi Arabia was mentioned by the British but was not discussed. Similarly, division of the Kuwait Neutral Zone was suggested by the British as advisable, but no conversations on the subject were conducted.

With reference to land boundaries, Judge Hudson said the British emphasized the importance of sedentary peoples in establishing the boundaries, taking no account of nomadic peoples. They failed to consider that the tribes are both nomadic and sedentary at different seasons. The Saudis, the Judge said, proposed a meeting with the ruling Sheikhs, including both those in special treaty relations with the British and those who are not. He said Prince Feisal insisted that rulers, not deputies, attend. It was observed that it would be unfortunate if participation were not more flexible, for it is not unlikely that some of the rulers could not attend for perfectly good reasons. Judge Hudson said Feisal was hopeful the conferences could be held in January or February, and the British agreed in principle to the meeting. The Judge pointed out that the Fact-Finding Commission might be retained as an adjunct to the conference. The Saudis also proposed that all activities in the areas in dispute be suspended. There was also tacit agreement that the Persian Gulf median line not be discussed because this would raise too many other problems. Judge Hudson also observed that all fishing, pearling, and navigation rights would be preserved on shoals, islands, and submarine areas.

1. Attached to this memorandum of conversation were a translation of an agreed summary of the London talks, a British paper entitled “Anglo-Saudi Arabian Frontier Negotiations,” dated August 17, and a memorandum on the division of the seabed between Bahrein and Saudi Arabia, presented by the British Delegation at the London talks on August 10.
2. This memorandum was prepared on September 28.
3. A Saudi Arabian Delegation, headed by Prince Faisal, and a British Delegation, headed by Herbert Morrison, met in London from August 8 to 24 to discuss boundary problems between Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, Bahrein, and the Trucial Shaikhdoms.
4. For documentation on 1949 negotiations between Saudi Arabia and the British, see Foreign Relations, 1949, vol. vi, pp. 91 ff.