125. Memorandum From the Director, Arabian Peninsula Affairs (Dickman) to the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs (Sisco)1

SUBJECT

  • Saudi Abu Dhabi Border Issue

REF

  • Your note on Abu Dhabi’s 7352

I have come to the conclusion that the best thing we can do concerning the long-standing Saudi–Abu Dhabi boundary issue is to continue and make both sides realize it is in their best economic and security interests to settle the issue. In so doing, we should not get involved in offering a specific solution. Shaykh Zayid, who feels the US has great influence with King Faisal, would very much like to transfer responsibility for solving the boundary problem to our shoulders. However, this issue can only be resolved directly by the two parties. We have, as you know, tried a number of different approaches this year:

In April we discussed with the British a proposal where they would urge the UAE and we would urge the Saudis to meet in Europe or in the US to discuss the border issue. The British felt that the time was not ripe for a settlement and that neither the US nor the UK would benefit from becoming involved in the issue. Embassy Jidda basically echoed these views. Saudi Foreign Minister Saqqaf’s comments indicated that the Saudi position on the boundary would soften very slowly and Jidda felt we should be cautious in pressing for direct Saudi–Abu Dhabi contacts lest they deteriorate into a confrontation over the boundary question.

In May we tried another tack of using the possibility of UAE– Soviet relations as a point to spur the Saudis to establish diplomatic relations with the UAE leaving the boundary question in cold storage for the time being. Jidda thought this was a non-starter. It felt the Saudis would be incredulous of any deal by which the UAE would promise [Page 397] to hold off further ties with USSR in return for Saudi recognition. Also Jidda felt that it was best for the UK not to become associated in a renewed endeavor to settle the border issue because Saudi suspicions of the British on this matter remain deep.3

In June you raised the subject with Tony Parsons during the June 26 Gulf discussions. Parsons told you that while he thought the earlier Saudi proposal for a boundary settlement was reasonable, he did not think Shaykh Zayid would budge, and the UK did not want to reentangle itself with Faisal over the matter.4

During the summer we quietly encouraged the Jordanians to play a role. Through Amer Khammash, the Jordanians indicated that they might be able to be of some assistance following their earlier efforts to patch up Iranian-UAE relations at the time of King Hussein’s visit with the Shah in late July. So far nothing has come of these Jordanian endeavors.5

Early in September, Shaykh Zayid visited London. There he got a talking to from the British who encouraged him to work out an exchange of ambassadors with Iran. At the same time, the British encouraged Zayid to resolve his boundary differences with the Saudis. Zayid at that time welcomed the prospect of Jordanian mediation although he was disheartened at the lack of momentum.6

In October, during the UNGA bilaterals, we raised the boundary issue both with the UAE and the Saudis. When UAE Foreign Minister Suwaidi hinted at a direct US role, the Secretary quite rightly told him that the US was prepared to do what it could to help but could not assume a problem in which the US was not previously involved or tell the Saudis how to settle the boundary.7

Since then we have heard expressions from Zayid that he wants to settle the issue with Faisal. However, he has been deliberately vague in spelling out how it is to be resolved. The Saudi position which was presented by Faisal in June 1970, and was most recently restated by Saqqaf to a journalist in Tehran on December 11, remains very clear.8

[Page 398]

I do not believe that we will see any progress on the boundary question until both Saudi Arabia and the UAE decide to develop the very valuable oil resources in the Zararah–Shaiba field which remains unexploited. This is probably one of the world’s largest oil fields. It straddles the 23rd parallel, running through both UAE and Saudi territory. Its light-grade crude (low sulphur) is in great demand. Sooner or later, economic forces will probably move both countries to try and work something out that will be acceptable.

In the meantime, all we can do is to support Jordanian mediation, albeit weak, and encourage both the Saudis and the UAE to enter into direct contacts to resolve this issue.

  1. Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Files 1970–73, POL 32–1 SAUD–UAE. Confidential. Sent through Atherton. A handwritten note by Sisco reads: “I remain unconvinced. I’ll sit tight a little while longer and then we’ll see.” Attached but not printed is a map of the Abu Dhabi–Saudi Arabia boundary.
  2. On telegram 735 from Abu Dhabi, December 9, reporting on a private conversation between Senator Fulbright and UAE President Zayid, Sisco wrote: “Can we intervene usefully on this [the boundary dispute]? JS” (Ibid.)
  3. As reported in telegram 740 from Kuwait, April 27; telegram 1346 from Jidda, April 23; and telegram 74841 to Kuwait and Jidda, April 29. (All ibid., POL SAUD–UAE)
  4. See Document 117; also telegram 108505 to Jidda, June 16; telegram 1038 from Kuwait, June 11; and telegram 1964 from Jidda, June 13. (All ibid.) The details of the border dispute are in a letter from Hume Horan, Deputy Chief of Mission, Jidda, to Twinam, June 5. (Ibid.)
  5. As reported in telegram 3296 from Amman, August 8. (Ibid., POL IRAN–UAE)
  6. As reported in telegram 6068 from Tehran, October 5; telegram 182988 to Abu Dhabi, October 6; telegram 9522 from London, October 6 (all ibid.); and telegram 2173 from Kuwait, November 7. (Ibid., POL SAUD–UAE)
  7. As transmitted in telegram 3537 from USUN, September 28. (Ibid., POL UAEUS)
  8. As reported in a December 13 memorandum of conversation. (Ibid., POL 7 UAE)