File 2182/1913 Pt 5 'Arabia Nejd: Policy Bin Saud' [‎365r] (305/308)

5
Enclo. No. 3.
Comment on wording of Treaty as signed'by Bin Saud.
^ With reference to my previous note of June 26th forming enclosure to my
letter No. 1318-B., dated 16th June 1915.
PREAMBLE.
1. Addition of words *' Jubail and the towns and ports belonging to them
In reply to my observation that we recognised Jubail as being within the Hasa
Sanjak, w r nat need therefore was there to make specific mention of the place,
Bin feaud explained that it was the locality where his limits on the coast
approached those claimed by Kuwait, and for that reason he would like to have
the place specified. It is well outside the boundary accepted by us for Kuwait,
in our negotiations with the Turks, so I saw no objection to accepting its
mention here, with the words following. j
2. “ For a long time ” instead of <£ for generations Accepted without
discussed and determined hereafter ”. Accepted for same reasons as stated
under (1) above.
. I- Change of word c< countries ” for <f territory ” or “ limits ”. Accepted as
desired by him, as being unobjectionable.
5. Addition of words “and absolute Chief of their tribes Bin Saud was
anxious for its retention and it is a difficult point to argue; so I did not press
for its omission.
6. (a) The words “designation of his successor” (by the living Euler).
The word translated “designation” was “tansib” in Bin Saud’s draft. The
word cc tansib ” as used and spelt by him was of dubious meaning and
accuracy, so in agreement with him it was changed with his concurrence to
“ taa’in ” about which there is no ambiguity. ' I made sure that the English
rendering conveyed the meaning intended by him.
{b) “or by the calling for the votes of the subjects inhabiting the
countries”. We discussed the possibility of doing this in practice and the
question of whether the course suggested could be regarded as an ordinary
method of deciding a succession. We both came to the conclusion that it
was not a practicable proposal and had better be abandoned.
7. I could not get Bin Saud to accept the condition of British approval as
worded by us. I pointed out to him that in the absence of such a clause we
might perhaps find ourselves committed to support an incompetent son,
designated because he was his father’s favourite, although perhaps unpalatable
to the tribes or unfriendly in his feelings towards us. His reply was that in
practice it would not be possible for the Euler to appoint an individual or for
the latter to make good his succession unless he enjoyed the confidence of the
tribes and was capable of controlling them.
As a matter of fact there being no third party to this Treaty the inter-
pretatioD of it rests with us and we should not in practice accord recognition
to anyone wffiom we did disapprove, nor would he be able to last, without
our recognition. I trust the proviso inserted will be considered sufficient to pro
tect our interests.
8. The question of “ unprovoked ” aggression. He repeated the argu
ment that the word “taadi” in itself suggested absence of justification, but
that in any case he could hardly agree to the insertion of the word “ unprovok
ed ” because we should be able to take refuge behind it in order not to
afford him assistance, if at any time it was inconvenient for us to do so. He
continued that it was certain that there would be no intentional aggression by
Article flf.