'File 14/115 VII Annex (B 9) Abu Musa oxide: collected background material on the case' [‎68r] (146/1904)

. -IheJxjato containing trie sneikh's armed force were towed to Abu Musa by the
British war-saip Lapwing', on board which was Lieutenant C. H. Gabriel, British
vice -consul at Bunder Abbas. ■
About mia-day on the 23rd October (a few hours after the departure of the British
war-ship) owo employes of the firm of Robert Wonckhaus and Co , who had approached
the island in order to land on it, were received with bullets by the sheikh's armed men,
and forced to turn back.
as. .stated above., there is a difference of opinion as to whether
Sheikh 8;ikar was justified in acting as he did. Whereas the British Memorandum
maintains that there was nothing illegal in Sheikh Sakar's proceedings, the Imperial
Government are still of opinion that he had no legal right, either by private or by public
law, to cancel of his own motion the lease agreement concluded by Sheikh Salim, and that
the forcible execution of his decision must undoubtedly be regarded as an illegal act.
(A).— Position of Sheikh Sakae with eespect to the Company of Lessees,
from the point of tiew of Peitate Law.
It is stated in the British Memorandum that the Island of Abu Musa is the
property of Sheikh Sakar, and that it was only as the representative of Sakar and while
he acted as regent during the iatter's pilgrimage, that Sh eikh Salim concluded the lease
agreement; that the island is an integral part of the dominions of the Sheikh ofShargeh,
wiio in recent years has regularly sent his cattle to graze on the island; and that
Sheikh Sakar, who after the deposition of Salim made the latter an allowance, had,
solely in consequence of oral and personal arrangements, increased this ailow;ance by the
revenue of A bu 3:: v .;. including that derived from il.e vrd oxide iniiies. .
In proof of this the British Memorandum first cites a letter from Salim to Sakar of
the 21st February, 1908 (Annex 1 of British Memorandum), in which Salim declares
that he has no claim to the island and has never put forward any claim to it, and
then a kind of Memorandum of Sheikh Sakar, dated the 22nd February, 18 98^ '
(Annex 5 of British Memorandum), in which he gives an account of his relation* with
■Balim and his arrangements with him in regard to property. Further, there are cited
two letters from Sakar to the British resident in the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. , dated the 21st
January and I4th February, 1884 (Annexes 3, 4 of the British Memorandum), in which
Sakar describes Abu Musa as "our island and a dependency of Shargah," as well as
the agreement between the two sheikhs, of the 6th April, 1889) (Annex 2 of the British
Memorandum). Finally, reference is made to a Memorandum of Major P. Z. Cox,
British resident in the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. , dated the 28th February, 1.908, on the history of
Abu Musa (Annex 6 of the British Memorandum), and to a letter from Sakar to the
British resident, Lieutenant-Colonel Kemball, dated the 11 th October, 1902 (Annex 7 of
British Memorandum), which is held to show that in concluding the lease agreement,
Salim was acting in his capacity of regent.
Before these arguments are examined, attention must be called to an inaccuracy in
the text of the British Memorandum. It is there stated that Sakar granted to Salim
the revenue of the island, including' that derived from the mines. Sakar in his own
account only speaks of havi ng as signed to Salim the amount of the rent of the oxide
!■■■-• .M consequence of bis complaint th t bis ncouu is ihsuffici! ut.
As regards the evidence produced, the Imperial Government regret that they are
unable to accept as unobjectionable testimony the letter of .Sheikh Salim to Sheikh Sakar,
dated the 21st February, 1908, to which the first place is assigned in the British
Memorandum. This letter and Sakar's Memorandum of the 22nd February, 1908,
which must be regarded simply as the version of an interested party and valueless as
evidence, were written at a time when efforts were being made to collect proofs of the
legality of the steps taken by Sakar against the company of lessees. The Imperial
Government have informatioh that Major Cox was at Shargeh just at that time.
The contents of both documents are so much out of harmony with the former attitude
of the two sheikhs and with facts which will be mentioned further on, that one can
only conclude that the sheikhs at the later period gave a different account of the
proprietary rights on Abu Musa.
Sakar's letters to the British resident in 1884 (Annexes 3, 4 of the British
Memorandum) are no evidence of Sakar's ownership of the island. In order to under
stand them fully "one must remember that' they were written at a" time when Salim was
living at Abu Musa after being deposed by Sakar, when the two sheikhs were enemies,
and when Sakar still had to fear resistance on the part of the former ruler, and perhaps
* Sic [? 1908].