"الملف 14/115 VII الملحق (B 9) أكسيد جزيرة أبو موسى: مواد خلفية حول هذه القضية" [ظ‎‎٨‎٧] (١٩٠٤/١٨٥)

even the seizure and retention of part of his dominions by him. But Sa,kar, having'
undertaken the government of Shargeh, was responsible for the preservation of peace
in accordance with the Maritime Truce, as is explained in the Memorandum by Major
Cox referred to above. He therefore begged the British resident to warn Salim to
keep quiet, and in order to justify his request laid stress on the fact that Abu Mnsa
was politically a dependency of Shargeh. The sole object of the letters therefore was
to put an end to the political conflict between the two sheikhs. This view is supported
by the tollowing minute (printed in Annex 6 of the British Memorandum), which
appears with Sakar's second letter, in the archives of the British resident:—
"Sheikh Sagar seems to insist that if Salim continues to live on Bu Musa he
should give a guarantee through the resident that he will not do anything to disturb
him, Sheikh Sagar, or the maritime peace."
So that when we find in the one letter the words: " Abu Musa is an island
dependent on Shargah, and we cannot spare it to others," and in the other the words;
" Bu Musa is our island and a dependency of Shargah," this can only refer, according
to the whole context, to the circumstance that the island belongs to the
territory of Shargah. Consistently with this, Salim himself, as mentioned below (p. 6),
describes Abu Musa in several letters and documents as "my" or "our" island
(meaning, that is, that he is the private owner), and as " a dependency of Shargah."
If Sheikh Sakar goes on to write: " I cannot dispense with the Island of Bu Musa,
as it is oi: great use to me," this can only be taken, in view of the context just referred
to, in a political sense and not in the sense of private ownership.
In the British Memorandum these letters are made use of to support the assertion
that Salim's presence on Abu Musa was only " tolerated." The contention is evidently
that Salim had no right whatever to live on Abu Musa, and that if he did live there,
it was really only owing to the kindness of Sakar. But it appears from what has
been said above that this "toleration" is to be understood entirely in a political sense
and has nothing to do with the question of private ownership. No doubt Sheikh Sakar
was at liberty to banish his political opponent from the country and also to prevent
him from residing on his private estate. If Sakar did not do this, that is no
reason for concluding that Salim had no right, from the point of view of private law,
to reside at Abu Musa. Salim's right to live at Abu Musa on the strength of his
owning private property there, and Sakar's decision to tolerate his presence there, in
spite of political hostility, are such very different things that conclusions cannot
possibly be drawn from one to the other.
Those letters, then, have nothing to do with the question of private ownership.
In any case, they cannot be cited to disprove the private ownership of Salim. If,
however, they are to be considered as having a bearing on this question, they would
seem rather to point to the conclusion that Sakar regarded Abu Musa as a domain of
Salim, from which he would have to drive him if Salim was guilty of political
misconduct by interfering in Sakar's affairs or disturbing the peace. (" If Salim wants
to live in it and guarantees that he will not commit anything which would interfere
with my affairs or disturb the maritime peace, it matters not . . . .")
The letter, too, which Sakar addressed to Lieutenant-Colonel Kemball on the
l lth October, 1902 (Annex 7 of the British Memorandum), seems, on closer examination,
to have a very different meaning from that assigned to it in the British Memorandum.
In order to understand the letter, it would be interesting to know the purport of
Kemball's inquiry, to which Sakar's letter was an answer and which is not printed in
the Memorandum. Other known facts, however, make it possible to form an idea of
what led to the letter being written and enable one to arrive at a proper appreciation
of its contents. On p. 9 of the " Administration Report on the Persian Gulf
Residency and Muscat Political Agency for 1898-9," the following passage occurs:—
" It is reported that the uncle of the Sheikh of Shargah has given a long lease of
some oxide mines to Haji Ali Dubash, also known as Nakhoda Ali, who is a resident
of Bushire, where he got into trouble and had to leave. He is said to have already
exported 400 tons of oxide, and a further enquiry into the concession will be made when
an opportunity offers."
It is not stated where these mines are situated, but, in any case, Lieutenant-
Colonel Kemball certainly seems to have considered the sheikh's "uncle, Salim, as
the owner of the mines in question, as otherwise the above passage, which says nothing
about a regency or representation, would have left open the question how Salim came
to give the lease. It is to be presumed that later on the resident, carrying out his