The Buraimi Dispute (Essay Sample)

The Buraimi Dispute
1 Introduction
The Buraimi dispute was an affair between Great Britain and Saudi Arabia regarding nine villages located in southeastern Arabia collectively known as the Buraimi Oasis. Somewhere along the sleepy corner of the southeastern part of the Arabian Peninsula beneath the baking sands of this great desert, the inhabitant Bedouins wandered with their flocks grazing from one area to another, following rains while searching for pastures to feed their flocks. They cared less for what may lay beneath their feet apart from water to feed their livestock (Morton, 2013). As long as their livestock were fed, they had no interest on matters of property ownership and would owe their allegiance to the strongest leader.
Defining maps and territories made no sense to them as the sway of their leaders and grazing range determined the next frontier. In those days, there was no satellite navigation. Misunderstandings as a result of incomplete maps and undefined boundaries were a nightmare for geologists. Oil companies believed that the area was rich in oil. And so, things were not fanciful anymore as the settlement of the boundaries question was needed to solve the puzzle of the Arabian oil industry. Saudi Arabia began to claim the Buriami Oasis giving rise to one of the long-running disputes in the gulf (Morton, 2013). This paper looks into the circumstances surrounding the Buraimi Oasis dispute and its impacts in the region.
Literature Review and Background
What?
For many centuries, many tribes moved significantly between Greater Bahrayn into Oman which also included Buraimi Oasis. As early as the 12th century AD, these tribes with historical links to Al Hasa province in Saudi Arabia were a threat to Oman’s interior (Hawley 1970). A radical form of Islam called Unitarian movement or Wahhabi and Al Saud family’s ambitions engineered a series of military campaigns in the Arabian Peninsula in the 18th century. As a result, lengthy occupations of the Buraimi Oasis followed between 1800 and 1818 as well as between 1853 and 1869. The Al Said depicted little interest in the location apart from tax collection bids between 1926 and 1927 and slave-trafficking (Morton, 2015). This continued unabated until the dawning of the oil age in the 1930’s. Indeed, when Bahrain struck oil in May 1932, the Americans followed in order to strike a concession deal with Saudi Arabia (Heard-Bey, 2005).
Where?
The agreement was flawed in that whereas the western area in the agreement was defined by reference to geographical and physical features, the other eastern region was simply left as the portion of the kingdom within its frontiers. The situation became even more uncertain since when the oil companies sought clarification, none was forthcoming. It follows that the British had links with states of southeastern Arabia as a result of a series of 19th century traces meant to protect their maritime interests especially their shipping routes to India from piracy (Hawley 1970). This gave it the name Trucial Oman or Trucial Coast. This frontier encounter engaged their interest even though they had avoided any involvement in the affairs of the Arabian region. Hitherto, there had been an agreement between them and the Ottoman Turks which was referred to as Anglo-Turkish agreement (Morton, 2015). The Anglo-Turkish Conventions of 1913/14 delineated spheres of influence via blue and violet lines drawn on a map. Even though the Ottoman Empire had since expired, the British Foreign Office viewed this to mean that Ibn Saud had taken over the agreement. Accordingly, the US embassy was in Ankara was informed of these developments accordingly. But things didn’t sink down well with Ibn Saud who viewed the conquests by his past ancestors as a legitimate passport to warrant a territorial claim in the southern region (Heard-Bey, 2005).. Actually, Al Saud always believed it was his duty to rule the entire peninsula. Starting the summer of 1934, there were a number of meetings between the Saudi representatives and the British. In these meetings, the British made a number of proposals that included the incorporation of new lines on the maps.
Who?
The lines had green, yellow and brown lines which were also confusing for a one color blind diplomat. The overall result was that the proposed frontier went farther towards the east. In contrast, the final Saudi claim was shown by the Red Line also called the Hamza Line and took in a number of desert wells which ran eastwards into the Sufuq well. In addition, they also lay claim on Jebel Nakhash in Qatar and another region called Khawr al-Udayd on the coastline. This essentially would give them what they referred to as a ‘window on the Gulf’. The British were synonymous with the Ryan Line or Riyadh Line (Morton, 2015). It was named Ryan Line because Andrew Ryan, the British ambassador to Saudi Arabia was the architect of the deal at Riyadh. Apparently, the last duo lines were the parties’ representation before the Second World War. At the same time, the leaders of the Trucial Coast and Oman had already made oil agreements of their own with Iraq Petroleum Company, a British led consortium which was regionally represented by associate companies. But with time, the agreements for Abu Dhabi in 1939 and Oman in 1937 would prove their significance (Hawley 1970).
In 1935, the American oil company, Texas Oil Company purchased a 50% share for the Al Hasa agreement, California Arabian Standard which became American Arabian Oil Company in 1944. However, in 1948, IPCs Socony-Vacuum and Jersy Standard purchased shares in Aamco. The American oil companies indeed still remained with their 47.5% in the British-led IPC although matters appeared polarized between Saudi Arabia and the Americans. But Americans had double interests on both sides of the coin since they were not only pro-Saudi or pro-Aramco but at times they had to balance their interests in the Persian Gulf as well as in Arabia (Morton, 2015). Meanwhile, in 1949 Aramco oil surveys had penetrated Abu Dhabi territory in the south eastern desert. Abu Dhabi and British intercepted the convoy. In the same year, British advances for a boundary were met with a renewed claim from Saudi Arabia.
Why?
The claim made a large portion of southeastern Arabia reducing the domain of Abu Dhabi’s ruler to just a small pocket to the east of Abu Dhabi. The Qatar Sheikh also lost 25 mile territory while Buriami Oasis was declared independent. But in 1950, the parties set up a commission towards an agreement. As time went by, the Saudi and British negotiations remained at loggerheads (Heard-Bey, 2005). The Saudi’s were not happy with British alienation with Abu Dhabi and were in fact courting tribes in the Omani borderlands by bribing them with cash gifts. Local tribesmen were lured with cash and asked to sign declarations pledging allegiance to Saudi Arabia (Morton, 2015). The British proposed that the dispute could be solved through arbitration after which a series of attempts to solve the disputes hit a dead end. The British changed tact by adopting a ’stiffening measure’ in the Arabian Gulf. In March 1953, Operation Box was launched by the British (Hawley 1970). In 1954, the Anglo-Saudi Arbitration agreement required Turki and his folks to withdraw from Hamasa while the Trucial Oman Levies would withdraw from their base in the oasis. The arbitration proceedings in Geneva arrived but aborted due to corruption allegations. Now the time had come for the British to take the Oasis by force and protect their oil interests. With British help, a military operation codenamed Operation Bonaparte was launched to expel Saudi Police and retake Hamasa. On 26th October the same year, two TOL squadrons left the Kahil base and entered the neutral zone and Hamasa and the pro-Saudi sheikhs were driven out into exile in Damman.
2_ Analyses
Politically
The British government had generated a number of strategies in the Gulf that needed a comprehensive system of military and political intervention in the running of littoral affairs of the Gulf states. One, the British had anticipated to stop the slave trade which by then was a booming business for the Arabs in the Gulf during the 18th century. After abolishing the trade in the British Isles, the trade was abolished throughout its dominions in 1833. In 1847, an agreement signed by all rulers in the Gulf outlawed exportation of slaves from anywhere within the region (Morton, 2015). When the Perpetual Treaty of Peace was signed in 1853 to seal the end of slave trade, the British political influence was gathering momentum as they became more interested in the affairs of the shaikhdoms, often interfering with their political affairs where necessary (Heard-Bey, 2005). If a ruler disobeyed British orders, he would face the consequences that could even involve bombardments by British cruisers.
There was an atmosphere whereby both the tribal populace of the Trucial Coast and the rulers could display displeasure or support with regard to any British political event. Thus the British preoccupation on maritime rulers distorted the political balance of tribal powers along the coast and the hinterland. The Buriami area, Inner Oman and the Hajar mountains all came to the attention of the British. During the 18th and 19th centuries, the coastal Rulers were present physically but the political affairs were under the influence of the British. The strengthening of the coastal rulers influenced the power struggle between the settled Arabs and nomadic tribes (Morton, 2015). The British presence in the Gulf was essential for protection against external threats and incursions. For instance, when the France and Russia attempted to wrestle the Arab states from the British, they were repelled (Heard-Bey, ...