'File 14/115 VII Annex (B 9) Abu Musa oxide: collected background material on the case' [‎88r] (186/1904)

oSS£
I!Sir, with -s-t s ^ ^
island unc ^ e » Sheikh Salim-bin-Sultan cultivates in that
^ lent^trlT J T ^ 1 Went f 1 the la 7 aforesaid uncle was acting as
Samafieh a R-itIS — ^ 1 lease the mines of Abu Musa to Bassan-bin-
Wets Uainlfup t^owT Abdalkh - bin -H^B and Esa-bin-Abdul Latif, and the
the contraiy^the wnrda^' With ™ l f*™ 8 0Illy f . re 8 on ?- , 0 n
iqknri ?? PATifairi ^ ^ . *4-' U x O 1 ! sa? my un cl e — • . cultivates in that
of Abu Musa but fhof 0 oaKar . h as really nothing to do with the cultivation
Slim ba f presumably has a right to do so.*
view to tlvrYuvino- c mentioned, firstly, m order to fix the time, and, secondly, with a
for the innuirie-f rf tlf^ . e P out !® al responsibility as well for the lease in question ;
is notmSEn® ot the BrM resident were evidently inconvenient to Sakar. This
of the s-' i,e "+ + 18 , ® all , se ^ t ^ a 1 t tlle sheikh evidently has a wrong conception
March ' 'l809 - a treaty concluded with the British Indian Government on the 7th
B^L on the S at
with the P PT-n. Q r. "of '■, , l', w hat harm is there m navmg made a contract
English whil ^ f Sakar re P lied ' " We have made treaties with the
than British su^ipct^' Vp, fr0m + leasuj g aii y_part_ of our territory to foreigners other
+rA.f . * '-1'- i - llls interpretation is evidently erroneous, as it ^ives to the
rni a meaning wnch would be incompatible with the principle of the open door
Sedh^Wl' th0 ^«Ph»--hy Sakar. when Lieut,enant-Colonel^emSi
askeu him about leases ot land m which a foreigner—the Persian, Nakhoda Ali—was
to eXn wT to assure him that he had had no dealings with Nakhoda Ali, and
ment anH^W f vncleanving his regency, and not he, had concluded a lease agree-
Treatv of ! fiJJ u 7 i SU ¥.^ so that ' if the iease ^d been a violation of the
on Sakar tne political responsibility would have fallen primarily on Salim and not
nrnrWd Lieilte + l } ant - Colon i el Kemball—which is, moreover, the only document
I... -JC.J tms connection -supphes no evidence that Salim was acting siranly as
egent when he concluded tne lease agreement. On the other hand it is an important
^r^ttoibTMui. m Sakar ftt tliattime regarded the i )o8ition ^ saiim
, -Father, if Sakar now asserts (Annex 5 of British Memorandum) that he volun-
• rnn^ abSlgI1 ® a 116 rent . ot 2o0 ^ ren ch reals to Salun, in order to raise his income to the
amount previously promised or to a little over that amount, that is an ex state-
Z£J^Lt?eV: ei T ! - Md Which iS **** 'hat wm be
fne circumstoce that Sakar used to send his cattle to pasture on Abu Musa
Jnm J 1 r mconsistent With Sahm's ownership of the island, for, as may be gathered
-om Jkd-jor Goxs account (Annex 6 of British Memorandum), this mav very well be a
privilege of the reignmg Sheikh of Shargeh, a kind of servitude to which the orivate
property m the island is subject. j be
in this connection mention may be made of another circumstance which has an
important bearing on the question of the ownership of Abu Musa. As stated -bove
the arrangement of^1889 was preceded by other agreements respecting the pecuniary
4nn lP f i i r tl0 ^i, ' an - ia 0rder to mcrease his pension, which had been reduced to ■'
400 dollars, the revenue of the Island of Sir Abu Nuair, estimated at 200 dollars, was 1 •
assigned to him. How if the revenue of an island was to be given to Salim would it •
De ^ n -^ aturai to gi ve jnm that of the Island of Abu Musa, which he could have
■ r. ^ d an ' lf necessary, collected himself, since he resided in the island ? Of course L
it ^.uu Musa was already Salim's property this expedient could not be adopted.
T i j 'I? raised in the British Memorandum to Salim's ownership of the
Island Ot Abu Musa navmg thus been refuted, and attention having been called to certain
points which indirectly support the contention that he was the owner, reference will
i * lho ® e ° t ®° ce < " tlle lea8e has remained up to now" is also important in another connection T>
onl} mean that the lease has not yet expired. There is no mention here of a necessity for the"recognition nf
the agreement oy Sakar or of a right of Sakar to terminate it; while in his letter of February '>2° 1908 1p
British Memo rand mn.) ' *** ob J ectionable « and so I acquiesced in it." ^ (Annex 5 of
[2574 C—1] c