'File 14/115 VII Annex (B 9) Abu Musa oxide: collected background material on the case' [‎126v] (263/1904)

6
The- position no doubt was that Skaildi bagai fPlrnqnis^.^. — J; ' '
revenue that miaht accrue from the island, so long as bahm no^- iiapo
him for money and so long sis the income did not so .
be more than Sagar'smterestsconid allow him to relinquish <)i balim •^ UHl p A PV'''
to receive, (See" also penultimate paragraph ot enclosure ti ox J irst ismisa
Memorandum.)
(16) The Imperial Government regret
cbjectionable testimony the letter of Shaikh S 41e*
ruary The reasons of the German, Goyernment tor this attitude are uhau
the letter was written at the time the case was in progress and "hat i,_Major
Cox, was at Sliargah just at that time. Tliis is a very convenient way ot dispos
ing of, a difficult piece of evidence, but this argument., I hope, can be resisted.
Obviously tllere was no- reason for Salim to write,such a letter until he learnt
of the way in which his name was being used and of. the ciaima on Abu Muba
Island 'with which he was being credited.
The argument of. the German Government in. regard to the objeGtibnability
of .the evidence to this document would apply to a number of the annexes to their
rejoinder. Although, they bear each other no affection at heart, une tw®
ShaMshave been quite of one mind in regard to the behaviour of Hasan Samai-
yeh and the expediency of withdrawing the concession and if it had not been
withdrawn, by Shaikh Sagar it would 'have been withdrawn by Sh. ikh Salim„
In any case Shaikh Salim absolutely adheres to what he then wrote. -Hia
own letter was read over, to him in the presence of. myself and the Besidency
Agents of Lingeli and Shargah and he said he absolutely adhered to it4
(17.) The; Shaikh's-letters to the British
the British Memoraniumjam no evidence.of.
arguments used in support of this statement seem to be- a. good deal kboored.
The position was clearly as stated under item 12 above.
Shaikh Sagar had just"been created ruling Sh ikh by the voice of the tribe,
who were tired of Shf.ikh Salim : Sagar was obviously in a very strong position
and able to-turn Salim out of Abu Musa if he had a free hand*, but the IxiesiGieiit
told him that itin doing so he broke the maritime truce he would'be suppressed,
gh-aikh Sagar replied with a good deal of force ;; If you do not want us to:
fight, please remove Salim from the island yourself: if you find it inconvenient
to do that then leave us to settle the matter and do not call me to account if we^
fight. Atkaat> if you will hot-let me proceed to extremities with him, make
Mtn give a written undertaking, guaranteed by you,,that he will behave himself,,
so that I need not bother about him."
I think any-cmfe reeding Sh:.ikh Sagar- 5 s letters under reference would regard
them, especially: that of February 14, 1884, as not only having in mind the
need to preserve the maritime truce and put an end to the political conflict,,
but also as intended to form a specific assertion of his right of ownership as ruling
Shaikh, and so to safeguard himself against any prejudice to that right which
might otherwise result from the Resident's sterilizing action.
(18) Jbu Musa is our island and a de We
it to offers. —I gather from the observations made under this head and from the
italicising of the word " our that from the fact that the transaction quotes
Shaikh Sagar as using the plural pronoun in reference to himself, it is sought
to deduce, that Shaikh Sagar was not referring to himself but meant " we,"
i..e., 44 the Jowasim S5 , and only intended to claim that Abu Musa belonged
politically to the territory of Shargah or the Jowasim. Whether or not this was
the case cannot at all events be determined from the use or misuse of the pro
noun. Generally when Writing formal letters these Shaikhs use the plural pro
noun in reference to themselves. In this instance I find, on reference to the
original, that it is the translator of 1884 who is responsible for the use of both
forms in the one translation. In the. original Arabic the plural pronoun is used
throughout both letters.
With reference to the German arguments on this point. It is to be noted,
that when Sagar uses the plural pronoun they argue that by doing so he intended