BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//Center for International and Regional Studies - ECPv6.15.15//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-WR-CALNAME:Center for International and Regional Studies
X-ORIGINAL-URL:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu
X-WR-CALDESC:Events for Center for International and Regional Studies
REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H
X-Robots-Tag:noindex
X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:Europe/Moscow
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0400
TZOFFSETTO:+0300
TZNAME:MSK
DTSTART:20141025T220000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20130205T080000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20130205T180000
DTSTAMP:20260413T190636
CREATED:20141023T091029Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20210901T132026Z
UID:10000817-1360051200-1360087200@cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu
SUMMARY:Richard Schofield on Britain Territorializing when Decolonizing the Gulf
DESCRIPTION:Richard Schofield\, an expert on the study of historical territorial disputes\, delivered a CIRS ‎Monthly Dialogue lecture on “Territorializing when Decolonizing: Britain Tries to Square its ‎Circles in the Gulf\, 1968-1971” on February 5\, 2013. Schofield\, who is Convenor of the Master’s ‎programme in Geopolitics\, Territory\, and Security at King’s College in London\, examined the ‎period of the late 1960s and early 1970s when Britain announced its plans to leave the Gulf and ‎end the regional Pax Britannica. During this time\, there were several territorial issues and ongoing ‎disputes that Britain needed to confront before its departure. “In the late 1960s\, Britain was ‎faced with a whole set of territorial issues between protected states\, and between protected ‎states and their neighbors\,” Schofield said.‎ \n \n \nBy examining recently released British foreign office documents\, Schofield highlighted a set of ‎disputes that were ongoing in the 1960s\, including northern Gulf worries that continued on from ‎the 1930s posed by Kuwait and its boundary dispute with Iraq\, and\, in particular\, the intersection ‎of boundaries and territorial claims between Abu Dhabi\, Saudi Arabia\, and Qatar in relation to ‎the access corridor of Khor Al-Udaid.‎ \n \n \nBefore its departure\, Britain actively encouraged Gulf states into increased cooperation with each ‎other and attempted to contribute towards a future grouping of Arab states on the western side ‎of the Gulf in what was termed “Gulfery.” In order to achieve some movement on these ‎territorial issues\, the United States proposed solving several disputes simultaneously as a package ‎of disputes. This included proposing to the Shah that Iran drop its claim to Bahrain\, that Britain ‎help Iran gain ownership of islands in the lower Gulf\, and that a maritime boundary agreement be ‎signed between Saudi Arabia and Iran allowing oil companies in to develop the area. “One of the ‎things that was really troubling the States around this time was the failure of Saudi Arabia and ‎Iran to finalize a boundary agreement so that they could open up the hydrocarbon reserves of the ‎northern Gulf\,” Schofield explained. Towards the end of the 1960s\, however\, these deals rapidly ‎unraveled and became unfeasible.‎ \n \n \nOne particular case-study that Schofield examined was the “bizarre” boundary agreement signed ‎between Saudi Arabia and Abu Dhabi in 1974. The only way to make sense of this agreement\, ‎according to Schofield\, is to delve into the complex history of the dispute. “The agreement of ’74 ‎was bizarre […] for the way in which it dealt with both offshore and onshore boundary ‎definitions” because even though most of the territory lay within the Abu Dhabi boundary\, the ‎agreement read that all hydrocarbons in the area would be considered as belonging to Saudi ‎Arabia. Similarly\, the offshore agreement read that Saudi Arabia could mount military ‎installations on some of the islands said to belong to Abu Dhabi. ‎ \n \n \nAdding to the complexity of the agreement\, the onshore boundaries and the offshore boundaries ‎were negotiated at different times and with different results. Schofield said that “it was an ‎unusual and messy situation – you don’t see it replicated anywhere else.” In a time when Britain ‎was taking less responsibility for protected states’ foreign relations\, many of these territorial ‎agreements were being signed without the consent of Britain. “We move to a rather nonsensical ‎position where the southern Qatari land boundary was seen as a Saudi concern\, yet its ‎southeastern maritime limits a British one\,” Schofield said. ‎ \n \n \nIn conclusion\, Schofield argued that territorial boundaries in the Gulf were traditionally drawn ‎up according to “cultural and historical” agreements. Historically\, Gulf states exercised control ‎over non-linear nodes of land as opposed to large swathes of continuous areas. Thus\, Gulf states ‎do not always respect modern boundaries and may view them as political\, divisive\, and an ‎ongoing source of contestation. Modern political economic concerns and requirements for the ‎legal division of hydrocarbons according to clearly demarcated borders are thus incommensurable ‎with traditional Gulf claims to land and resources.‎ \n \n \nRichard Schofield is widely recognized as a leading academic authority on the international ‎boundaries of Arabia and its surrounding region. He has written extensively on territorial aspects ‎of Arabia and the Persian Gulf region\, and has acted as adviser on territorial disputes to the ‎governments of Barbados\, Bahrain\, Jordan\, Yemen\, as well as to the Negotiations Support Unit ‎of the Palestine Liberation Organization in Ramallah. ‎ \n \n \nArticle by Suzi Mirgani\, Manager and Editor for CIRS Publications.
URL:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/event/richard-schofield-britain-territorializing-when-decolonizing-gulf/
CATEGORIES:Dialogue Series,Regional Studies
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/10/events_21801_16636_1414678687-1.jpg
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR