Page 126 - Records of Bahrain (7) (ii)_Neat

516 Records of Bahrain

probably have to be decided before the lino could
actually bo drawn, This would not affect the
principles however and when wo produced a churt
on which a provisional line wno traced, the Snudio
.apparently (although I have not been ablo to trace
it; oountorod with a ohart allowing a very similar
lino. ffin the principled to be adopted for dividing
the oenbed therefore, it does not look no If there
io a groat deal of difference betweon uo. This in
dearly of considerable importance since the principle 1 S*c~ &
adopted in Ilia ease will sot a precedent for ■J
demarkation elsewhere ip the Qulf. It was further o-r F1'} ^
agrood that after settlement of the ownership of the
Islands and shoals under dispute and the subsequent cv /o$j|**f*<
drawing of the dividing line, the remaining islands
and shoals should be regarded as belonging to .tbe
party oNwhoso sido of the line they lay. No further
progreoo has been made on this matter since the 1951
talks.
3. In/ iuclhxjc preparation for further discussions
with the Saudis we approached the Ruler of Bahrain
in order to obtain his views on how far we could go
on his behalf to meet the Saudi claims, Those are
contained in the oxchange of letters, dated the
25th September and the 9th October 1951. at Y\», t
-J
ES 1081/55/51. His views have not yet been put to
the Saudis and they are therefore not aware of the
further concessions we are prepared to make on the
Ruler’s behalf beyond those made at the 1951 talks.
For the reasons sot out in the draft letter to Sir
Rupert Hay which I submit, I recommend that we
should, as a first stop, put to the Saudis new
proposals for the division of ownership of the
islands and shoals between Bahrain and Saudi Arabia.
I have proposed (in paragraph 5(o) of the draft) a
slightly differont division to the one accepted by
the Ruler in 1951. This is because I consider
we should, in the first place at least, try to retain
tho whole of Faaht bu Safah for Bahrain and that, to
offset this, wo should stick to our 1951 offer to
concede tho Rennie shoal to the Saudis. There is
a complication in that the Ruler has stipulated that
: in conceding I.ubaina al-Khakiroh, this island should
not carry territorial waters, Tho Ruler would
have to be informed as in paragraph 2(o) of Mr.
Sarell's letter No. ES 1081/55 of the 1st December, <>•'. K
1951; we would hope that in fact he might agree
to waive his stipulation if it were explained to him
that it would be our intention to draw the median
lino exactly half way between Khabirah’and Saghirah. ( - i
j t (C ***»« C*-./v J>w. |.«i"c . /».y i- •. ’J'lf •c ••« r
11. There are eight Kuwait islands which were 1
disouased at the 1951 talks, All these lie off..
tho coast of Saudi Arabia between tho Noutral Zono
; 1
and Bahrain and many of them are within a comparativel
short distance of the Saudi Arabian coast. There
«is nothing to prevent one State having sovereignty
over islands which are situated in the seabed over
which another State has jurisdiction. Ncvertholeos,
in the absence of definite evidence as to sovereignty
(and the Saudis deny that this exists so far as Kuwait
is concerned) tho Saudis claim that the principle
of proximity should be followed, If in fact the
islands were res nulllue I imagine we should agree.
In fact we do nQt regard the Ruler of Kuwait's
dlalms to these islands as being strong, resting as
,they do on traditional use for fishing and polling
purposes. ‘The Ruler himself, when approached on
tho subject in 1951, was decidedly luke-wnrm in his
claims and we appear to have put them forward because
/we
: