Extended Essay: History

Is Britain Responsible For The Post- 1990 Boundary Disputes In The Middle
East?

Name: Faateh Sayeed

Candidate Number: 002279-065

Session: May 2010

School: G.D. Goenka World School

Supervisor: Sangeeta Gupta

Word Count: 3915

 2

Abstract

Is Britain responsible for the post- 1990 boundary disputes in the Middle East? Although
many on the Arab streets may like to accept this as true, attributing motives to Britain and
believing the existing territorial disputes as an outcome of deliberate and diabolic act of the
former colonial power to “divide and rule” the nations, the historical facts disprove such
assumptions.

Britain has played a significant and constructive role in the Middle East during the past
few centuries. It has helped in developing the region and modernizing most of the Arab
countries. It helped in the demarcation of boundaries between nations where they didn’t exist
and in negotiating and maintaining the legitimacy of such boundaries within the framework
of the international law. Britain was also actively engaged in policing of the Arab littoral of
the Persian Gulf in order to provide protection against piracy and preventing aggression
among the Gulf States.

The end result is that the inherent differences within the Arab world on the basis of tribal
affiliations, culture, customs and traditions, religious ideologies and later sharing of oil
resources, contributed to political and other differences between the Arab countries, which
eventually resulted in territorial disputes and conflicts.

This essay is an attempt to analyze all these factors and examine the role played by Great
Britain, if any, in the origin of the present day boundary disputes in the Middle East. I have
extensively consulted several research articles, books and websites to give my own insight on
the subject.

****
Word Count: 250
 3

Contents
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………...pg 4

Map of the Middle East…………………………………………………………………...pg 6

The formation of boundaries in the Middle East….................................................................pg 7

Britain as a negotiator………………………………………………………………..…..pg 8

Britain as the sole establisher of boundary lines………………………………….…. pg 10

Britain as an executer in Bi-National boundary agreements………………….…….pg 11

Continuation of boundary disputes after the exit of Britain……………….……....pg 12

Conclusion………………………………………………………………………….…....pg 15

Bibliography……………………………………………………………………..……....pg 16
 4

Introduction

Britain played a pioneering role in establishing many of the boundary lines between countries
in Asia and the Middle East during the past few centuries. Most of the boundaries in the
Middle East were established by Britain. Britain’s involvement in the Middle East dates back
to the Crusader Era, when the English Kings were fighting for the Holy Land. After the
Crusader Era, Britain did not deal with the Middle East for centuries until the late 1700s.

According to professor Gideon Biger “Britain first established itself permanently in the
Middle East in 1839, when it opened its first consulate in Jerusalem” 1 . From that point
onwards Britain played a pioneering role in the geopolitics of the Middle East. Britain has
helped in developing the region and modernizing most of the Arab countries. It was also
actively engaged in policing of the Arab littoral regions of the Persian Gulf and provided
protection against piracy and prevented aggression among the Gulf States2. While Britain is
generally considered as an architect of the modern Middle East, which witnessed the
emergence of new and independent countries from the erstwhile British protectorates, the
Arab Streets are often abuzz with murmurs tending to blame the colonial power for unhealthy
rivalry and territorial disputes between the Arab nations.

The First World War presented the Hashemites, who were the direct descendents of Prophet
Mohammad and ruled Mecca for more than a thousand years, an opportunity to free
themselves and create Independent states out of all the provinces occupied by the Ottoman
Empire. The British held long and protracted negotiations in Cairo with Sharif Hussein’s son,
Abdullah, and were ultimately receptive to the idea of independent Arab states. “If you and
His Highness your father still favor a movement such as would lead to the full independence
of the Arabs, Great Britain is prepared to assist such a movement by all the means in her
power” wrote Ronald Storrs, the British Oriental Secretary3. Thus, the Great Arab Revolt was
launched under the leadership of Sharif Hussein, and with the help of the British, the
Hashemites managed to get rid of the Ottomans after 400 years of occupation. However in
1916, little did the Hashemites know that while they were launching their rebellion against
the Ottoman Empire and fighting for the independence of the Arab lands with the perceived
support of the British, the latter had already prepared a blueprint in collaboration with the
French, defining the contours of the Arab States. “In 1916, while, Britain was already secretly
negotiating with France to divide, after the war, the Arab lands whose independence the
Arabs were fighting for. In what became known as the Sykes-Picot agreement, the French

1
“Britain’s Role as a Boundary Maker in the Middle East” by Gideon Biger, ‘Britain and the Middle East –
From Imperial Power to Junior Partner’, edited by Zach Levey and Elie Podeh, Chapter 1, Page 21

2“The Persian Gulf States and Their Boundary Problems”, by Rupert Hay, The Geographical Journal, Vol. 120,
No. 4 (Dec., 1954), pp. 433-443, Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The Royal Geographical Society (with the
Institute of British Geographers), Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1791061, Accessed: 31/01/2010.

3
“Memoir of an Unexpected Life, Leap Of Faith”, by Queen Noor, “An Audience with the King”, Chapter 4,
Page 57
 5

carved out Syria and Lebanon for themselves and the British took Palestine, Iraq, and the
region east of the Jordan River known as Transjordan.”4

Incidentally, the intricate Israel-Palestine conflict, which has remained unresolved in more
than a century, the Arab-Israeli wars, the Iran-Iraq conflict, the two Gulf Wars, the continuing
distrust between Iran and the Arabs and the perceived one-sided settlement of border disputes
of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia with its smaller neighbours are all attributed by the Arab
populace to the British colonial legacy.

This essay attempts to analyse these perceptions in the light of the historical role played by
Great Britain as a boundary maker, negotiator and arbitrator in tackling the territorial disputes
between various nations in the Middle East.

4
Noor, Op.Cit, Chapter 4, Page 60
 6

Map Source: www.shinesforall.com/images/MiddleEastMap.jpg

 7

The formation of boundaries in the Middle East

According to Gideon Biger there were three main ways in which the boundaries of the
Middle East were formed: (i) As a result of growth and rivalry between Empires, (ii) Internal
divisions by outside rulers and (iii) Negotiations between free and independent countries”5.
The following examples best illustrates these three mechanisms.

1. Growth and rivalry between Empires

• The Ottoman Empire against the Persian Empire established the existing
boundaries between Turkey and Iran and between Iraq and Iran.

• The Ottoman Empire against the British Empire established the existing
boundary between Israel and Egypt.

• The Ottoman Empire against the Russian Empire established the existing
boundary between Turkey and Georgia and between Turkey and Armenia.

• The British Empire against the French Empire established the existing
boundary between Israel, Syria and Lebanon.

2. Outside Interference

• The Syria-Lebanon boundary by France

• The Palestine-Jordan-Iraq boundary by Britain

3. Negotiations between sovereign countries

• Jordan-Saudi Arabia boundary

• Jordan-Iraq boundary

• Israel-Jordan boundary

• Saudi Arabia-Yemen boundary

More than any other country, Britain was responsible for most of the political events and
affairs which created the modern political map of the Middle East. Britain helped in
establishing some of the modern countries of the Middle East such as Bahrain, Iraq, Jordan,

5
“Britain’s Role as a Boundary Maker in the Middle East” by Gideon Biger, ‘Britain and the Middle East –
From Imperial Power to Junior Partner’, edited by Zach Levey and Elie Podeh, Chapter 1, Page 22
 8

Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. Britain not only played an important role in
establishing almost all the boundaries in the Middle East but it also enacted the role of a
negotiator in some situations.

Thus, to establish the boundaries of the Middle East, Britain acted as a “negotiator, arbitrator
and even as a sole establisher of boundary lines. It even monitored the implementation of the
boundary agreements between two nations”6.

I. Britain as a negotiator

Britain’s earliest association with the issues concerning territorial disputes in the Middle East
was to fix the modern boundary between the Ottoman and the Persian Empires. By the Treaty
of Zohab a notional demarcation of the boundary was done in 1639. In the nineteenth
century, with the increasing involvement of Britain, France and Russia in the political and
commercial activities of the Middle East, a consensus was reached to establish a definite
boundary line between Turkey and Iran. The efforts by a quadripartite boundary commission
comprising of Britain, Russia and Iran and Turkey, which was formed in 1843, failed to make
any headway in demarcating the boundary between the two stake-holders. “Up to 1885, the
British government spent more than one million pounds on defining the line between the
Ottoman and the Persian Empires, but nothing was achieved except a vague agreement”7.
Owing to persistent joint British-Russian efforts, the Persians and the Ottomans agreed for a
comprehensive delimitation of their boundary, which was completed in 1911. This boundary
line, with some minor changes made in the 1920s became the modern boundary between
Turkey and Iran and between Iran and Iraq.

In 1932, with the formation of Saudi Arabia and the discovery of oil in the newly formed
kingdom, Britain was keen to negotiate the settlement of the boundary between its
protectorate Qatar and the Kingdom. In 1935, a tripartite agreement between Britain, Qatar
and the Anglo-Persian Oil Company defined Qatar’s boundary based on the 1914 bilateral
agreement reached between Britain and the Ottomans but was rejected by Ibn Saud, the Saudi
leader. Several counter proposals were made but none of them found acceptance by the
parties concerned until the time Qatar remained a British Protectorate. In 1965, “a full
agreement was reached between Saudi Arabia and Qatar, with the approval of the British
Foreign Office, which noted that it was based on an understanding achieved twenty years
earlier”8.

6
Biger, Op.Cit

7
“Britain’s Role as a Boundary Maker in the Middle East” by Gideon Biger, ‘Britain and the Middle East –
From Imperial Power to Junior Partner’, edited by Zach Levey and Elie Podeh, Chapter 1, Page 24

8
Biger, Op.Cit, Chapter 1, Page 25
 9

However, the wrangling over land and maritime territories between Bahrain and Qatar, which
were both British Protectorates, could not be curtailed for a long time despite best efforts by
Britain. In particular, the dispute pertained to the Hawar Islands, the Dibal and Jarada shoals
and Zubarah. By virtue of the Anglo-Ottoman Convention of 1913 and the Anglo-Qatari
Treaty, Bahrain was forbid from any role on the Qatar mainland, including Zubarah. 9 In
1939, the British gave a ruling that the Hawar islands belong to Bahrain. However, the
dispute over these territories continued to crop up through 1937-1954. Although the British
mediation had helped in partial settling of minor land boundary disputes between the two
countries, the major dispute relating to the Hawar Islands remained, as both countries were
reluctant to withdraw their claim on the islands. After the British withdrawal in 1971,
following the independence of Qatar and Bahrain, Britain passed on the mediation role to
Saudi Arabia.

The territorial dispute between Iran and UAE revolved mainly on the control of Abu Musa
and Tumb islands, which are of considerable economic and geopolitical significance as they
are situated in the Strait of Hormuz, the entrance of the Persian Gulf, and are believed to have
high hydrocarbons potential.

Map Source: http://www1.american.edu/ted/abumusa.htm

Iran claimed that the island, which was formerly controlled by it, was handed over to
Sharjah by the British. On the eve of Britain’s departure from the Gulf in 1971, Britain
mediated a ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ between Iran and Sharjah, which outlined the
role of the two parties in the governance of these islands. As per the agreement, while Sharjah
was to sustain the autonomy over Abu Musa, Iran was allowed to post military forces on the
island. Oil revenues from the oil fields neighboring the island would be shared. However, in a
breach of agreement, Iran militarily seized the control of Abu Musa islands along with the
two nearby Tunb islands, leading to widespread condemnation in the Arab world10.

9
'Arabian Boundary Disputes – Historical, Political And Legal Dossier', Editor: R. Schofield, volumes 13-15,
1992, Cambridge Archive Edition

10
American University case studies, Case No. 369, website: http://www1.american.edu/ted/abumusa.htm,
accessed on 27th September, 2009
 10

II. Britain as the sole establisher of boundary lines

In some cases, owing to geopolitical reasons Britain unilaterally established the boundary
lines between countries in the Middle East rather than playing the role merely as a negotiator
or arbitrator. For instance, the boundary line between Palestine and Jordan was established
by the British High commissioner in Palestine on 1st of September 1922, which was accepted
by the League of Nations on the 23rd of September”. This boundary, with a few minor
changes, has remained the present day international boundary between Israel and Jordan as
per the 1994 peace agreement.

“The Iraq-Jordan boundary was an outcome of the complex geopolitical rivalries which
erupted in the form of the Arab Revolt of 1916-1918 and Great Power competition for the
exploitation of the weakened Ottoman Empire”11.

By virtue of the Allied convention held at San Remo on April 24, 1920, the earlier Arab
Ottoman land was partitioned into French and British mandates. In August 1932, Britain
embarked upon the task of defining the boundary between Trans-Jordan and Iraq with active
mediation by C.H.F. Cox, the British Resident in Amman.

The Trans-Jordan boundary was defined by simply drawing a straight line through the desert.
The demarcations of territory, however, between British and French areas of authority, also
as within their own allocations, remained unclear and would be focused later on. This
remains the present day international boundary between Iraq and Jordan with only minor
changes taking place which were agreed to by both the countries.

As early as 1908, the British officials recognized the fluctuating and undefined nature of the
boundaries of the Kuwait principality. The 1913 Anglo-Ottoman Convention also vaguely
defined the outer sphere of influence of the Sheikhdom by an outer "green line", which was
subsequently adopted as the frontier between Kuwait and Iraq.

In 1923 the British Political Agent at Kuwait attempted to define the boundary with Iraq with
an equally vague suggestion "one mile south of the southernmost tree south of Safwan." 12
The ambiguity of the demarcation line continued through the 1940s until 1951 when after
Iraq gained independence while Kuwait still remained a British Protectorate. In 1951, the
Iraqi government accepted a British offer for a definite demarcation of its boundary with
Kuwait in exchange for control over the mudflat of Warbah. In 1963 the two governments
mutually recognised their boundaries, which remained in tact until the Iraqi invasion of
Kuwait in 1991. Following the defeat of Iraq in the First Gulf War, the boundary was
reinstated to its original position and was finally delimited by the United Nations in July

11
US Department of State, International Boundary Study, No.98,Iraq-Jordan Boundary, April 15, 1970

12
'The Iraq-Kuwait Boundary Dispute: Historical Background and the UN Decisions of 1992 and 1993', Harry
Brown, IBRU Boundary and Security Bulletin, October 1994
 11

1992.

III. Britain as an executer in Bi-National boundary agreements

Another difficult role played by Britain in the Middle East was as an executor of the bi-
national boundary agreements, particularly those of Iraq with Turkey, Syria and Saudi
Arabia.

In April 1920, Britain was granted the mandate by the League of Nations over Iraq. The main
difference between the British in Iraq and Turkey was the control of the pre-Ottoman
province of Mosul. Turkey had claimed that the area was occupied by the British “after the
surrender of Turkey in 30th October 1918”. Britain, however, claimed that the province was
always an integral part of Iraq. In 1926, Britain succeeded in acquiring this area, which
became a part of Iraq. This boundary runs through very harsh terrain and divides the Kurdish
nation into those who live in Turkey and those who live in Iraq. The British-Turkish
boundary line is still the present day international boundary between Turkey and Iraq.

The boundary between Syria and Iraq was created because of the division of the British and
French areas of influence as per the Sykes-Picot Agreements of 1916. In 1920, the League of
Nations gave Britain and France the mandate to govern the area which was Syria and Iraq.
However no mention of a particular dividing line was made by the League of Nations, so
Britain and France had to establish one between the areas controlled by them. “The
demarcation between Syria and Iraq first appeared as a straight line running in a northeastern
direction from Druze Mountain, crossing the Euphrates River and extending up to the Tigris
River”13. In 1932, the League of Nations defined the accurate boundary line, which is still the
present day international boundary between Syria and Iraq.

The case of Saudi Arabia was slightly different. Britain, which initially supported Ibn Saud,
got alarmed by his continued advance and perceived him as a threat to their interests in Iraq
and Trans-Jordan. They were determined to make the Saudis agree to demarcated boundaries
with Iraq and Trans-Jordan. A series of agreements were negotiated between the British and
the Saudi rulers commencing with the Treaty of Mohhamerra of 5th May 1922 14 , which
introduced the concept of a boundary as an imaginary line in the desert, and was
provisionally accepted by the Saudis on condition that the lives of the nomadic tribes would
not be disrupted. This was followed by the Uqair Protocol15 signed on December 2, 1922
between the British High Commissioner to Baghdad, Sir Percy Cox, and Ibn Saud, which

13
Biger, Op.Cit

14
Biger, Op.Cit

15
All Experts Encyclopedia, website: http://en.allexperts.com/e/u/uq/uqair_protocol_of_1922.htm, accessed
September 28, 2009
 12

defined the boundaries between Iraq and Nejd (present Riyadh); and between Kuwait and
Nejd. This was further enforced during the Bahra Agreement16 of November 1, 1925.

In 1965, a ‘neutral zone’ was created along some parts of the boundary, and it still exists as
the international boundary between Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Tentative agreement on the
partition of the Saudi-Iraqi neutral zone was reached in 1981, and partition was finalized by
198317.

Continuation of boundary disputes after the exit of Britain

The complexity of geography, tribal loyalties and colonial legacies were instrumental in the
continuance of territorial disputes between various countries in the Middle East even after the
exit of Britain from the region. The main boundary disputes were those of Saudi Arabia with
Qatar, Yemen and the UAE; Qatar with Bahrain and Iran with the UAE. Some of these
disputes are described in greater details below so as to highlight the point that Britain was not
directly connected with these disputes.

Saudi-Arabia – Yemen Boundary Dispute

In 1934, Yemen and Saudi Arabia agreed to the Taif Treaty which ended a violent war and
established a common boundary between the two countries. In 1990, the civil war between
southern and northern Yemen had ended, and this created the new unified country of Yemen.
This new unified Yemen created a major strategic threat to Saudi Arabia as Yemen sided
with Iraq during the Gulf war. The new government also did not accept the failure of loosing
the three provinces captured sixty years ago by King Abdul-Aziz.

In 1992, the new Yemeni government also wanted to re-negotiate the Taif Treaty. Due to
international pressure Saudi Arabia was forced to negotiate with Yemen and settle the
boundary issues which were arising. In 1994, tension grew between the two countries when
Saudi Arabia backed the southern Yemen tribal leaders by giving them military and financial
aid to fight against the government in control.

In 1998, the Saudi-Yemeni pressure was once more at the highest point. Saudis claimed that
troops were sent by Yemen to occupy the disputed islands. “There were known battles on
Duwamish Island, one of three islands claimed by both countries, where Saudi naval and long
range artillery attacked the island, killing three people” 18 . Three-quarters of the disputed

16
Britain and Saudi Arabia, 1925-1939: the Imperial Oasis, Clive Leatherdale, Frank Cass, London, 1983.
First Edition, p.375

17
Saudi Arabia Country Profile, US Department of State, January 2009, Website:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3584.htm, accessed September 28, 2009

18
'Saudi Arabia - Yemen Border Dispute', by Chris Murphy, ICE Case Studies, Number 197, Nov., 2006,
quoted on http://www1.american.edu/TED/ice/saudi-yemen.htm, accessed on September 27th, 2009
 13

island is claimed by Saudi Arabia, while Yemen stakes claim over the entire territory. Shortly
after the clash both sides affirmed their intention to continue efforts to resolve their disputes.
The negotiations brought up a new border agreement which was agreed to in June 2000, and
replaced the Taif Treaty.

Saudi Arabia – Qatar Boundary dispute

In 1965 the rulers of Qatar and Saudi Arabia decided to restrict the boundaries of their
territory from Duhat As-Salwa in the west to Khwar Udaid on the east. In 1992, tension
between Saudi Arabia and Qatar rose to an unexpected level as a border dispute between the
two countries occurred in the region of Khafus. The fighting which took place on September
30th, 1992 between Saudi and Qatari army men left 3 people dead. “The Qatari government
gave this issue a lot of publicity and blamed Saudi Arabia for trying to capture its territory.
However the Saudi government claimed that the clash took place inside Saudi territory
between Bedouins from the two countries19”. This event was the start of a long period of
tension between Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

In 1996, Qatar and Saudi Arabia agreed to a border segregation deal, which the two countries
completed in 1999, by signing the segregated maps of the common borders between the two
countries.

Qatar-Bahrain Boundary dispute

Bahrain and Qatar both state that the oil prosperous Hawar Islands are part of their territory.
Bahrain states that regardless of the closeness of the area to Qatar, continuous Bahraini
existence on the Hawar islands gives it more authority to rule on the island. This conflict goes
back more than a century when the present Bahraini ruling family ruled most of what is
presently western Qatar. The conflict rose to its peak in 1986 when armed fighting was
prevented only with Saudi involvement. Because no agreement could be met between the two
countries Qatar referred this case to the International Court of Justice in 1991. Bahrain was
fixed over its claim that the Hawar Islands are a part of their territory and has been non-
committal if it will accept the ruling of the court or not. “In December 1999, a joint
committee, co-chaired by the crown princes of the two countries, was established in a
bilateral attempt to resolve the dispute” 20 . Qatar agreed to remove its case from the
International Court of Justice only if the committee achieves an agreement. Nevertheless, the
work of the committee was stopped in May 2000, with campaigns to restart subsequent to the
court's ruling.

19‘Saudi Arabia and the Smaller Gulf States: The Vassals Take Their Revenge’, Oliver Da Lage, RFI, Paris,
The Gulf Monarchies in Transition, Colloquium, Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI), 10-11
January 2005

20
‘Border Disputes on the Arabian Peninsula’, by Ramin Seddiq, Policy Watch No. 525, March 15, 2001, The Washington
Institute for Near East Policy. Website: http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=1403, accessed on
September 27, 2009
 14

In a landmark judgement delivered on March 16, 2001, the International Court of Justice
(ICJ) upheld the Bahraini sovereignty over the Hawar Islands, besides the island of Qit'at
Jaradah while upholding Qatari sovereignty over Zubarah and Janan Island21, including Hadd
Janan; thus, ending the longest case heard by it in its history.

Iran-UAE Boundary dispute

UAE and Iran each argue that the three islands in the Persian Gulf, Abu Musa and the Greater
and Lesser Tumbs, belongs to them. Abu Musa is situated 43 miles from Iran and 34 miles
from the UAE. In 1971, just a few days before UAE’s Independence Day, Iran deployed
troops on Abu Musa. At that time an agreement was concluded under which the island was
jointly controlled by both countries. “Since 1992, Iran has taken steps to gain full control of
the island, it was objecting to the increase in foreigners coming to the island. Iran had also
restricted external access, increased its military presence on the island and built an airstrip”22.

The Greater and Lesser Tumbs are deserted islands situated in tactical global shipping lanes.
The UAE claims that both these islands are part of their territory and prefers a ruling by the
International Court of Justice. On the other hand, Iran does not appreciate international
mediation, but instead wants to handle the disagreement bilaterally with the UAE based on
the 1971 agreement. In 1999, the GCC formed a committee which involved the foreign
ministers from Oman, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar to settle this boundary dispute. However Iran
has refused to meet this committee and the dispute remains unsolved.

This boundary dispute resulted not because of Britain, which had successfully settled this
boundary dispute before 1971. It was in 1971 did Iran use military intervention which caused
the dispute between Iran and the UAE.

Saudi Arabia-UAE Boundary dispute

The 1974 and 1977 agreements had dispossessed the UAE from straight contact with Qatar.
A narrow strip of Saudi land reaches the sea at Khor Odeid, at which Saudi Arabia has built a
naval base situated just between Qatar and the UAE. Between 1997 and 1998, while Saudi
Arabia was actively restoring its associations with Iran, the UAE presumed that it was being
abandoned by its key GCC colleague. “The UAE foreign minister openly accused Saudi

21
International Court of Justice, Press Release 2001/9 dated 16 th March, 2001, website: http://www.icj-
cij.org/presscom/index.php?pr=234&pt=1&p1=6&p2=1, accessed on accessed on September 28, 2009

22 ‘Border Disputes on the Arabian Peninsula’, by Ramin Seddiq, Policy Watch No. 525, March 15, 2001, The Washington
Institute for Near East Policy. Website: http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=1403, accessed on
September 27, 2009
 15

Arabia of breaking its promise on its agreement concerning the three islands occupied by Iran
on the eve of the independence of the UAE. The Saudi Defence minister replied with
disrespect and disregard, which increased the anger in the UAE”23. On April 1999, the UAE
did not participate in key a meeting of oil ministers organized by Saudi Arabia in the border
zone, where they publicly inaugurated the Shaybah oil field. The UAE believes that Saudi
Arabia illegally captured an oil field belonging to them, the oil field lies below the disputed
zone of Burayami. The matter has since been resolved with UAE accepting the Saudi
positions as fait accompli.

Conclusion
Though the Arab countries share a common religion and language, they differ markedly in
their culture, customs and traditions and in some cases the sects of Islam. In many of these
countries tribal affiliations and loyalties overtake ideological considerations. The
proliferation of tribes and smaller fiefdoms had played a significant role in the emergence of
the current geopolitical realities in the Middle East.

The discovery of oil came as a blessing to the Gulf States as it made them wealthy when they
were on the brink of bankruptcy following the collapse of the pearl trade, which was their
main source of income. However, oil had also given rise to many new problems, the most
significant and most complex being the finalization of land and sea boundaries between the
Gulf countries.

The Arabian Peninsula has, thus, been a cauldron of conflict of states, tribes, peoples and
cultures, some of which are even continuing in the present times.

In view of these facts, it can be argued that Britain may not have willfully divided the
countries in the Middle East or caused territorial disputes between them for tactical or
strategic reasons. It would also be unfair to continue to blame Britain for the numerous wars
and disputes that have occurred in the Middle East in the period following the withdrawal of
the British from the region.

Thus, I do not support the assumption that Britain was responsible for the post-1990
territorial disputes in the Middle East, particularly the Gulf countries.
***

23
‘Saudi Arabia and the Smaller Gulf States: The Vassals Take Their Revenge’, Oliver Da Lage, RFI, Paris, The
Gulf Monarchies in Transition, Colloquium, Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI), 10-11
January 2005
 16

Bibliography

1. “Britain’s Role as a Boundary Maker in the Middle East’ by Gideon Biger, ‘Britain and the Middle
East – From Imperial Power to Junior Partner’, edited by Zach Levey and Elie Podeh

2. “The Persian Gulf States and Their Boundary Problems”, by Rupert Hay, The Geographical Journal,
Vol. 120, No. 4 (Dec., 1954), pp. 433-443, Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The Royal Geographical
Society (with the Institute of British Geographers), Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1791061,
Accessed: 31/01/2010.

3. “Memoir of an Unexpected Life, Leap Of Faith”, by Queen Noor, “An Audience with the King”,
Chapter 4, Page 57-60

4. 'Arabian Boundary Disputes – Historical, Political And Legal Dossier', Editor: R. Schofield, volumes
13-15, 1992, Cambridge Archive Edition

5. American University case studies, Case No. 369, website: http://www1.american.edu/ted/abumusa.htm,

accessed on 27th September, 2009

6. US Department of State, International Boundary Study, No.98,Iraq-Jordan Boundary, April 15, 1970

7. 'The Iraq-Kuwait Boundary Dispute: Historical Background and the UN Decisions of 1992 and 1993',
Harry Brown, IBRU Boundary and Security Bulletin, October 1994

8. All Experts Encyclopedia, website: http://en.allexperts.com/e/u/uq/uqair_protocol_of_1922.htm,

accessed September 28, 2009

9. Britain and Saudi Arabia, 1925-1939: the Imperial Oasis, Clive Leatherdale, Frank Cass, London,
1983. First Edition, p.375

10. Saudi Arabia Country Profile, US Department of State, January 2009, Website:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3584.htm, accessed September 28, 2009

11. 'Saudi Arabia - Yemen Border Dispute', by Chris Murphy, ICE Case Studies, Number 197, Nov., 2006,
quoted on http://www1.american.edu/TED/ice/saudi-yemen.htm, accessed on September 27th, 2009
 17

12. ‘Saudi Arabia and the Smaller Gulf States: The Vassals Take Their Revenge’, Oliver Da Lage, RFI,
Paris, The Gulf Monarchies in Transition, Colloquium, Centre for Educational Research and
Innovation (CERI), 10-11 January 2005

13. ‘Border Disputes on the Arabian Peninsula’, by Ramin Seddiq, Policy Watch No. 525, March 15,
2001, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Website:
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=1403, accessed on September 27, 2009

14. International Court of Justice, Press Release 2001/9 dated 16th March, 2001, website: http://www.icj-
cij.org/presscom/index.php?pr=234&pt=1&p1=6&p2=1, accessed on accessed on September 28, 2009