Page 125 - Records of Bahrain (7) (ii)_Neat

Saudi Arabia-Bahrain seabed boundary, 1951-1958 515

KASTI.UN DKI’AIITMENT
1953
ARABIA
^Tkdjfa. ■ (fa- Pit, u*,

b A** ■ f&ssj ervo^

'
/o^ 3/ a /^3
y&y vfco
9/<2
Vb (xnJyOh-CkJxjn^J

Last Papor, (Afiniifei.)

The question of ownership of certain islands,
Roforoncos. and shoals lying between Bahrain and Saudi Arabia'
was disaussed in considerable detail at the 1951
talkB with the Emir Faisal. For two yoars prior ,
to these talks notes had been exchanged with the’ 1
Saudis on this question and in August 1950 a number
of Saudi markers had been removed by the Royal
Navy from certain of the islands which we regarded
ao belonging to the Ruler of Bahrain (as well ps
from cortiin islands which we claimed Cor Kuwait),
(Print.) At tho 1951 talks arguments were put forward "hy
both sides in support of their claims but no
agreement on thij division of ownership of the
disputed islands and shoals was reached, each side
writing into the record its proposes and reserving
(//0U> lUl/IUHCll !>/.)
its pooition. The intention was thut the discusslops
should be continued at the Dammnn Conference but
time did not allow, and as a result nothing more
has bebn hoard of this question since the 1951
talks. It is hoY/ever clear that tho Ruler would
like to see a settlement of tho dispute, particularly
since it may will affect his potential oil revenues
for the future. At present, under an agreement
made with the Saudis in 1950, both BAPCO and
ARAMCO are bound to pursue a policy of "mutual
restraint" with regard to the disputed areas.
This probably has little effect on ARAMCO but it
does restrict BAPCO from operating in the aroa of
tho Fasht bu Safah shoal where they had done
0| rllrtH exploratory' work prior to 1950 and which they
oonsidor is a promising reservoir of oll,t*eoorvee>
n,. «
2. 4 At tho 1951'talks we also put forward to the
if t l un/x/i, Saudis a memorandum on the principles which wo
oonaider should be adopted for the division of the
(Action (Index.)
seabed between Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. In effect
oomplolod.) // our proposal was that'the dividing line should bo the
lr territorial waters of either State, provided that t^e
i p m median line between the oU&er limits of the
extent of territorial waters should, for this purppep,
be taken as being tho same for both sides. It \vps
Noxt Papor. recognised that the pooition of this line would
probably be affected by decisions as to the owner-1
ship of tho islands and shoals referred to in
paragraph 1 abovo, and therefore this question would
31401 l-'.O.l*. /probably