Coll 6/66 'Saudi-Arabia: Saudi-Transjordan Frontier' [‎83v] (166/427)

4
ES-HSEsrassfi
remain as it stood until other outstanding questions had been disposed of an
whole question could be finally and thoroughly settled. ^
SIR A. RYAN mentioned the three principal places m regard
tlvit the Saudi Government were mistaken; and now Ihamyya Taiaif, w
Involved so manv factors as to make it. in His Majesty’s Government s view
necessary to re examine the frontier as a whole. Apart from these there were he
believed no points in dispute in connexion with the alignment of the frontie1 ’
he thought, therefore, that the status quo might well be maintained the
meantime.
FTTAD BEY HAMZA replied that the Saudi Government might agree m
general to this suggestion, but that they could not agree as regards Thamyya
Taraif. which was, he asserted, in baudi territory.
Mr RENDER explained again the reasons for which His Majesty s
Government were convinced that any such assertion was open to serious question.
EL T AD BEY HAMZA then proposed that all the existing phvsical featuies
shown on the 1918 map as lying to the west of the frontier should be regarded as
falling within Transjordan Used in three contexts: the geographical region to the east of the River Jordan (literally ‘across the River Jordan’); a British protectorate (1921-46); an independent political entity (1946-49) now known as Jordan , and all those shown as lying to the east of it should
be regarded as falling within Saudi Arabia, irrespective of where they might
aetuallv be on the ground. A new frontier could thus be established vithm
difficulty. If Thaniyya Taraif were shown on the 1918 map as lying to ^
of the Hadda line.* the Saudi Government would admit that it was
Transjordan Used in three contexts: the geographical region to the east of the River Jordan (literally ‘across the River Jordan’); a British protectorate (1921-46); an independent political entity (1946-49) now known as Jordan but if it were shown as lying to the east of the line, they cou
allow Transjordan Used in three contexts: the geographical region to the east of the River Jordan (literally ‘across the River Jordan’); a British protectorate (1921-46); an independent political entity (1946-49) now known as Jordan to make use of it without special permission and would be
obliged to treat any Transjordan Used in three contexts: the geographical region to the east of the River Jordan (literally ‘across the River Jordan’); a British protectorate (1921-46); an independent political entity (1946-49) now known as Jordan forces frequenting the spot as trespassing on
Saudi territory, with all the consequences that this might imply.
Mr RENDER, in reply, made it clear that the interpretation of the Hadda
Agreement line and the recognition of the physical features was precisely the
difficultv with which both sides were faced. It was, m fact extremely hai
know wWe that line lay on the ground. He had already explained the diffi^ty
of identifying the physical features. So long as there was any doubt on t ^
point, it was impossime merely to draw a frontier on the basis of the featu.es
shown on the 1918 map.
Mr MALCOLM indicated with a sketch the type of difficulty which wou c
seem likely to arise if this criterion were adopted. He drew a diagr|n showmg
fniir imaeunarv nhvsical features, numbered in order 1, 2, 3 and 4. He assumeu
ha an a g ccuiSe P map might well have the effect of altering the position of these
features so that the numbers ran, for example, 1, 3 4 and 2. Jt
nossible in the first case, to draw a line which would place featuies a
Fe west and 2 and 4 to the east of a frontier, but the second case would wholly
MterMhe Alignment ofthe dividing line. A frontier based on the position of
each feature as shown on the 1918 map might appear reasonable on the 1918
map, but the same principle might produce a hopelessly tortu ons a nd impm
cable frontier if the relative positions of the features were shifted.
FUAD BEY HAMZA then proposed as an alternative that the Hontiei
should be fixed purely by the points of latitude and longitude given ir utlL g^
ofthe Hadda Agreement, irrespective of the physical features. He said that
the Saudi Government would willingly agree to this method, anc e
put it forward as a definite proposal. r* , ,
Mr RENDEL pointed out that this would not give effect to the Hack a
Agreement Article 1 of that agreement specifically mentioned the 1 .1.000,000
“international ” map (i,.. the 1918 map) as the relevant map f^rthmaml
other reasons (e.a., the reference to the projecting edges of the Wad ^
was clear that the frontier was intended to appioximate a • jJj tte( j on
in relation to the physical features, to the Hadda Agreem