"ملف ٦/٤ II الحدود الكويتية-العراقية" [ظ‎‎٢‎٧] (٤٤٠/٥٤)

of the 19th August last) that there are in existence a post and board
indicating the frontier on the track between K owe it and i;ubair south
of Safwan. To* determine the frontier at this point by a reference
to the most southerly palm in Safwan has always seemed to His Lordship
a somewhat unsatisfactory expedient, and he is of the opinion that it
would be definitely preferable to adopt instead a reference to the
existing post and board, as being less likely to a rouse controversy
either with the Iraqi Government or with the Sheikh. Since t^.s
board is apparently less than one mile south of Safwan, His Lordship
assumes that this suggestion will commend itself to Lord /.etlaiid.
') .. , u. |
7. The next fixed point on the frontier is that described by Sir
iercy Cox as the junction of the Kfyat* Lubair with the Khor Abdullah.
It will be recalled that in his despatch of the 1st July last, Sir
Basil fcewton proposed that this should be defined as the junction of
■t* 16 thalweg of the Khor Zubair with the thalw eg of the north-westerly
arm of the Khor Abdullah, known as the Khor Shetana. In the enclosed
despatch Sir Basil Hewton points, out that below Urn ^aer the Khor
Zubeir is described on certain Admiralty charts as. the Khor Um j,asr
and he therefore suggests that it will be more accurate to substitute
Khor Um Gasr for Khor Zubair in this formula. Lord Halifax has noted 1
that in the same charts the westerly part of the Khor Shetana is des
cribed as the Khor Sakan. Logicallytherefore, it would be necessary
to substitute the term "Khor Sakan" for the "Khor Shetana", if the ,
Khor Um Cesr ie substituted for the Khor Lubair. On the,whole,
however, His Lordship doubts whether it ie necessary to adopt either ^ f
of these names, since it seems to him that the meaning of the
as incorporated in Sir Basil Newton’s despatch of the 1st July is
already sufficiently clear. Moreover, in view of the existence of
the Urn ' asr Creek, the use of the term "Khor Um Casr" is likely to
cause some confusion.
8. The most important point, however, to which I am to draw-
attention arises in connexion with the frontier between the two fixed
points mentioned above (the point just south of the latitude of Safwan
and the junction of the Khor Zubair wfth the Khor Shetana) . The
explanatory formula as drafted by Sir Basil Newton contains no
explanation of this eection of the frontier, while the relevant
extract from Sir lercy Cox’s definition reads as follows;
V>vi),
... thence eastwards passing south of Safwan wells, Jabal^^-
Sakan and Um Qlasr, leaving them to Iraq, and so on to the ^
"juhction of 'the Khor Zubair with the Khor Abdullah."
This d efinition, although it specifically leaves Um L.asr to Iraq, does
not seem,to Lord Halifax to provide in itself an adequate basis for
the demarcation of the frontier, since it is not even stated that the
frontier shall follow the slur test line, between the two terminal point*
No doubt the reason for the somewhat imprecise nature of this defini
tion was that the time it wae regarded as sufficient to make it
clear that Um tasr belonged to Iraq and that the frontier should reach
the thalweg of the Khor Abdullah at the junction of the tthor Zubair
with the Khor Shetana. Be that as it mtqr, some amplification now
seeme necessary end Lord Halifax can only suggest that, in. order to
avoid disputes, the frontier should be defined ns following as far es
possible the shortest line between the post south of Safwan and the
junction of the thalwege of the Khor Zubair and the Khor Shetana. It
would not appear, however, thet this definition could be proposed
without seme modification, since so ftr as can be ascertained from
the available maps, the shortest line between these two terminal
points would not only cut across.the Khor Zubair at its south-eastern
extremity, but would even include part of the left bank of the Khor
Zubair. It has never been suggested, nor could the Iraqi Government ,|
be expected to qgree, that any part of the left bank of this inlet
,belongs to Koweit, while, as stated above, it is clearly the implica
tion of Sir lercy Cox’s definition that the frontier of Koweit shall