$Unique_ID{bob00389} $Pretitle{} $Title{Kuwait Refuting the Lies of Saddam} $Subtitle{} $Author{Embassy of Kuwait, Washington DC} $Affiliation{Embassy of Kuwait, Washington DC} $Subject{kuwait iraq ottoman agreement state part borders saddam british iraqi} $Date{1990} $Log{} Title: Kuwait Book: Kuwait Events Author: Embassy of Kuwait, Washington DC Affiliation: Embassy of Kuwait, Washington DC Date: 1990 Refuting the Lies of Saddam Kuwait is a historic, political and legal reality Preface Since the beginning of the brutal invasion of Kuwait on August 2, 1990 which resulted in the killing, detention and expulsion of innocent Kuwaiti citizens and expatriates and the looting and plundering of public and private property in a manner never before witnessed in modern history the oppressive Iraqi regime has been trying in vain to muster support for its brutal invasion against Kuwait and its people. Toward this goal it put forward many weak and irrelevent arguments and lies which when scrutinized prove to be mere fabrications lacking any justification. First the regime claimed that its forces penetrated deep into the Kuwait land to extend assistance to the Kuwaiti people. When it found out that not a single Kuwaiti citizen offered to cooperate, it subsequently announced the formation of an imaginary government calling it the Government of Free Kuwait. The names of this government members only existed in the mind of Saddam Hussein. At a later stage Saddam announced the establishment of a republic in Kuwait but when he discovered that the random measures he had taken to justify his invasion of Kuwait were rejected by respectable Arabs and Muslims as well as by world opinion Saddam resorted to claims that Kuwait was part of Basra during the Ottoman empire and that it was the British colonial rule which had stripped it off Iraq. This claim was asserted by Saddam Hussein in his address to the American people on September 26, 1990. Based on our belief that historical, political and legal facts refute Saddam's lies and claims specially those contained in his above mentioned speech we feel bound to state the truth and unveil the false claims and reply to these distortions through a straightforward historical document that will invalidate the aggression and condemn the aggressor. Study No. I Kuwait: a Historical and Political Fact In this study we will deal with Saddam's false claims and lies contained in his above mentioned address. We will then reply to these false claims by stating beyond any doubt that Kuwait is an existing historical and political fact despite all these false claims. First: Saddam Hussein said the Kuwaiti rulers were hand picked by foreign forces to become rulers of that part of land that has been taken away from Iraq. It is evident for every one that this claim is not backed by reality. The fact is that Kuwait was founded by Al-Sabah family and the Arab tribes at the beginning of the 18th century. Joining hands with their countrymen they patiently struggled and endured hardships and difficulties and cooperated so that Kuwait would remain free and sovereign. All the available historical documents substantiate these facts and at the same time refute the false claims by Saddam Hussein that Kuwait is part of Iraq. His claim of the return of the usurped southern part of Iraq to the motherland is a repugnant and a flagrant seizure of Kuwait; its entity, sovereignty, independence and legitimacy and a naked attack against the dignity and civility of its free and proud people. Second: Saddam Hussein claims in his above mentioned speech that Kuwait represents the southern part of Iraq and that Britain took it away from Iraq in 1913 during the first World War and installed (Sir) Mubarak Al-Sabah as an undisputed ruler. This claim, in addition to being a great blunder and an attempt to circumvent reality, ignores the historical facts and documents that refute its legitimacy. It is quite evident that Kuwait appeared as a political entity when its people, acting on the Islamic principle of Shura (consultation) that was deeply entrenched in their way of life, elected Sheikh Sabah I as emir in 1756 long before the evolution of modern Iraq as a state in the twenties of this century. It was never envisaged by the early Kuwaitis and those who came after them that a day would come when someone in Iraq, which at that time was under direct Ottoman rule, would claim that independent Kuwait is part of Iraq and accordingly develop an aggressive intent to occupy Kuwait, kill and displace its people and loot and plunder the country's public and private establishments. The historical facts state that Kuwait, unlike Iraq, has never been under the Ottoman rule but was discharging its authority independently of the Ottoman state and of any other entity under its authority such as Iraq. Furthermore, the Ottoman state did not appoint a ruler to govern Kuwait in its name as it did in the case of Iraq. To this is added the fact that contacts between the emir of Kuwait and the Turks were conducted directly and were not carried via Iraq or through it. As for Kuwait's relations with the Ottoman state these began when the Al-Sabah family settled in Kuwait together with a number of Arab tribes. The part of the land on which the Al-Sabah established Kuwait emirate was close to Iraq which was part of the Ottoman state. Hence Sheikh Sabah sought to contact the Ottoman wali (ruler) nearest to Kuwait, and he happened to be the ruler of Baghdad, to negotiate with him and exchange views on matters of interest to the two sides and to ensure the safety of the tribes passing through its lands. The two sides agreed on this and Kuwait continued to run its affairs independently while consolidating mutual respect with Bani Khaled, the rulers of the eastern part of the Arabian Peninsula at one hand and with the Ottoman state at the other. This mutual relationship between independent Kuwait and the Ottoman state continued for a long time and this independence was stated by the records of the Dutch in Kharj Island as representatives of the Dutch East India Company. This independence was also established by the Ottoman rulers themselves including Midhat Pasha, the ruler of Baghdad since 1866 who was known for his expansionist policies and his desire to extend the authority of the Ottoman state over the largest possible area of land. It was stated in his autobiography and in his correspondence with the Grand vizir (prime minister in the Ottoman Empire) that "Kuwait is independent and is a semi-republic whose people insist on maintaining their independence and reject any connection with the Ottoman state because they have no desire to commit themselves to material taxes that could be levied on them. Their trade is free and active and they do not accept any employees or soldiers. They consider the Sultan as the head of the Islamic faith and their ships raise the Dutch flag at times and the British flag at others. Midhat Pasha advised the Ottoman state of introduce Ottoman reforms in an attempt to link Kuwait to the Ottoman state. Although the suggestion made by Midhat Pasha was met with good response from the Grand vizir no arrangements that would affect the independence of Kuwait have taken place and Kuwait continued to retain its actual independence of the Ottoman state in spite of its cooperation with the Ottoman state and its participation in its land and naval expeditions out of its desire and keenness to maintain the mutual and religious ties and since any outside threat that faces the Ottoman state will in most cases face Kuwait at the same time. A clear evidence of the independence of Kuwait of the Ottoman state is the fact that when Kuwait felt it was being intimidated by the Ottoman state it acted on its own and Sheikh Mubarak Al-Sabah signed the protection agreement with Britain on January 23, 1899. By so doing Kuwait rejected any link with the Ottoman state and the agreement stated that Britain will protect the sheikh and his heirs as long as he remained committed to his undertakings to Britain. When the First World War broke out a British declaration to Sheikh Mubarak was made on October 1914 recognizing Kuwait as an independent state under British protection while Iraq was put under the British mandate. Kuwait became independent in all its internal affairs. As for foreign affairs these were administered by Britain due to the consent of the rulers of the Arabian Gulf who agreed, for practical reasons, that Britain would take over the administration of their foreign affairs in return for their protection, maintaining their tiny entities and respecting their freedom regarding the running of their internal affairs. At this time Iraq was under the British mandate and its internal and external affairs were dominated by Britain where all government circles and administrations were run by British advisors. It is worth mentioning that finding itself unable to face Britain the Ottoman state entered into negotiations with it during the period 1911 - 1913 that culminated in the signing of the Anglo-Turkish agreement of 1913. The agreement contained five parts, the first of which dealt with Kuwait. In articles 5 to 7 Kuwaiti borders with Ottoman Iraq were defined and the two islands of Bobyan and Warba were recognized as part of Kuwait while Safwan and Um Qasr were taken always from it. Thus Kuwaiti borders were defined under an international agreement binding on all parties. At the Al-Aqeer conference in 1922 Iraq made inquiries to Britain about its relations with Kuwait and the effect of this on the ongoing negotiations regarding the borders in the region. Britain answered that its relations with Kuwait were mutual and based on the protection agreement signed between the two parties in 1899 and that the Kuwaiti - Iraqi borders were those defined in the Anglo-Turkish agreement of 1913. This fact refutes Saddam's claim that throughout the different eras Iraqi rulers did not recognize Kuwait. The Ottoman state recognized the above mentioned agreement as well as the agreements reached by Kuwait and Britain. These were recognized by Iraq during the rule of the monarchy when at the 1922 Al-Aqeer conference on the definition of boundaries it enquired about the relations between Kuwait and Britain and the effect of this on the ongoing border negotiations. The then British High Commissioner in Iraq Percy Cox answered the Iraqi government stating that relations between Kuwait and Britain were mutual ones based on the protection agreement signed between the two sides 1899. This recognition remained valid throughout the rule of the monarchy in Iraq. In 1932 when Iraq was about to gain independence from the British mandate and become a member to the League of Nations Iraq had to define its borders with its neighbors and it brought forward that document in the League of Nations. The British High Commissioner wrote to the acting Iraqi Prime Minister Jaafar Al-Askari for the exchange of memoranda regarding the demarcation of borders with Sheikh Ahmad Al-Jaber based on the attached written memo. This was done after the return of Nuri Al-Saeed, the prime minister, and Al-Saaed and Sheikh Ahmad exchanged the memos defining the borders of their two countries through the British High Commissioner. The exchange of the memos between a head of government or foreign minister with their counterparts in other countries is considered a binding agreement according to the international laws and norms. This was made evident during the republican rule in 1963 when another agreement was made between Kuwait and Iraq in which the two parties agreed to the following: a) The republic of Iraq will recognize Kuwaiti independence and full sovereignty within its borders stated in the letter of Iraq's prime minister dated 21.7.1932 which was accepted by the ruler of Kuwait under his letter dated 1.8.1932. b) The two governments should work to consolidate the fraternal relations between the two sisterly countries guided by the national duty, joint interests and the aspirations for a comprehensive Arab unity. c) The two governments should work to establish cultural, trade and economic cooperation between them and to exchange technical information. In realization of this the two countries exchanged diplomatic representation at the ambassadorial level. This agreement was signed by the head of the Iraqi delegation Maj. Gen. Ahmad Hassan Al-Bakr who was then prime minister and Sheikh Sabah Al-Salim Al-Sabah the then Kuwaiti prime minister and head of his country's delegation. From the above mentioned it is evident that: a) The historical facts referred to herein refute in absolute manner the claim that Kuwait was part of Iraq and contradicts Iraq's claim that Kuwait was under the Ottoman rule. This claim, despite being false, opens the door wide for unrestrained chaos that could afflict the entire world if other countries dared to take similar acts claiming historical rights. The Iraqi regime could occupy Jordan claiming that at one time it was part of the Ottoman Empire. Iraq or part of it could be subjected to such claims if another country or countries claimed historical rights in Iraq. To firmly establish this fact we refer to a number of proofs that show beyond doubt the independence of Kuwait from the Ottoman state: 1. The absence of any material proof such as soldiers and government employees, payment of taxes, government departments ... etc. Not only this but Sheikh Mubarak refused to accept the government official sent by the Ottoman state to work as director of the sea port in an attempt by the Ottoman state to establish material proof to its sovereignty over Kuwait after the signing of the protection agreement. Kuwait is void of any Ottoman material archeological remains such as castles and palaces which were scattered all over the areas that had been under Turkish rule. 2. Kuwait never asked assistance from the Ottoman state throughout its history and even when there was a threat or when Kuwait was subjected to outside aggression it defended itself relying on its own power without seeking intervention from the Ottoman state. 3. Kuwait was a haven for the opponents of the Ottoman state and those fleeing it. The British historian (Bridges) who was employed with the East India Company said he fled to Kuwait in 1794 following a dispute between the company and the Ottoman authorities in Basra and that the ruler of Kuwait accorded him all the facilities he required. He described him as a just ruler who enjoyed the love of his subjects. Naturally if Kuwait was part of Basra its ruler would not have acted the way the ruler of Kuwait did but would have followed the same policy adopted by the Ottoman authorities in Basra. Bridges further states that one of Basra's rulers, Mustafa Agha or Musfataf Al-Kurdi, fled to Kuwait together with his friend Thowaini Al-Saadoun, the ruler of Al-Muntafiq, after a dispute between them and the ruler of Baghdad, Soliman Pasha, in 1789. The ruler of Kuwait refused to hand over the refugees despite threats and promises of money offered to him by the Ottoman authorities in Basra. This clearly shows that Kuwait was not a part of Basra province at the time. 4. The transfer of the activities of the British Agency to Kuwait when the Iranians occupied Basra during 1776-1779 and the solution of the problem facing the East India Company cargo accumulating in India waiting shipment. The same agency moved twice from Basra to Kuwait as a result of dispute between its administration and the Ottoman officials in Basra. The first time was between 1793-1795 and the second in 1921. This has two indications. First, the company administration was satisfied with the good treatment on the side of the Kuwaiti ruler and merchants. Second, and more important, is the fact that Kuwait was independent of the Ottoman rule and if this was not the case then it would not have been possible for the company administration to move from one Ottoman-ruled place to another. 5. No money was sent from the Ottoman state to the emirate of Kuwait. 6. British and Ottoman documents clearly state the independence of Kuwait of the Ottoman rule. This is particularly stated in documents the most important of which is the letters of Midhat Pasha to his government in addition to many other documents. As for the British documents including those of the British political residents Kempell, Meed and Curzon, the viceroy of India, and many others. 7. The recognition by the Ottoman state in the Anglo-Turkish agreement of the independence of Kuwait and its definition of the boundaries between Kuwait and Ottoman Iraq in the same agreement. 8. The recognition by the Ottoman state in the Anglo-Turkish agreement and all conventions made by Kuwait with Britain and this also contradicts claims of its direct subjugation to the Ottoman state. In that agreement in 1913 it recognized Kuwaiti sovereignty over Warba and Bobyan while it continued to administer, with the consent of Britain, the two regions Safwan and Um Qasr which were part of Kuwait. The borders between Kuwait and Iraq became clear and they were recognized by both Kuwait and Iraq through the exchange of memoranda between Sheikh Ahmad Al-Jaber and Nuri Al-Saeed (the Iraqi prime minister) through Britain when Iraq gained its independence in 1932 from the British mandate. 9. One of the documents published by Saldana (the undersecretary of British India) states that during the reign of Sheikh Jaber Al-Sabah (1835) the Turks attacked and ransacked Al-Zubair and that some of its citizens fled to Kuwait. The document further states that Jaber had enough force to resist the Turks and refused to heed their orders. 10. The defeat of the Ottoman state in the First World War and its expulsion from the territories under its rule and the recognition of Kuwait as totally independent under British protection as incorporated in the 1918 Lausanne Agreement. 11. Sheikh Mubarak's rejection from the start of any cooperation with the Germans and of their offer to select Kazmah as the end station of the Berlin-Baghdad Railway Line despite approval by the Ottoman Sultan of the German offers. 12. The claim that Kuwait was part of Basra or the Ottoman state is further refuted by the fact that the Ottoman Empire enforced its laws on all the countries under its domain. Of these laws is the book of judicial rules which represented the civil law of the Ottoman state. The book was applied in Iraq, Jordan, Syria and Palestine and other countries but was never applied to Kuwait throughout the Ottoman rule. It was only applied in 1938 long after the Ottoman Caliphate ceased to exist. If Kuwait was part of the Ottoman state the book would have been applied to it at the same time it was applied to Iraq. Then how can it be envisaged that the book was applied to Basra but not in Kuwait? If Kuwait was part of Basra as claimed by Saddam and his mouthpieces then the rules contained in the said book would have been applied to Kuwait but this did not happen until 1938 which means that Kuwait applied these rules at its own will and discretion; proof of its independence and sovereignty in taking the measures it deems appropriate. 13. It is also worth stating here that all geography and history books, academic or otherwise, which are printed and circulated in the Republic of Iraq had always continued to refer to Kuwait as an independent Arab country. There are tens of Iraqi publications that prove this and stress in letter and spirit the independent entity of Kuwait. a) To the above mentioned is added the fact that in Islamic history the territory of Kuwait had been part of Bahrain region which extended from Mount Sanam in the north to the borders of the Empty Quarter in the south. This part covers the eastern section of the Arabian Peninsula. The tribes of Tameem, Saad and Abdul Qais were the inhabitants of this area which was later inhabited by Bani Khalid and other tribes who bore no allegiance to the rulers of Iraq and whose lands had never been part of it at any time. Arab and Muslim geographers and historians regarded Basra as the southern border of Iraq which in the past used to be known as Ard Al-Sawad (the land of the black). Kuwait has never been within Iraq boundaries. b) If the relation between Iraq and Kuwait is that of a subsidiary with the principal as claimed by the Iraqi regime then who had ever heard of a principal establishing full and continuous diplomatic relations with its subsidiary? How come that Iraq the principal agreed to the full participation of Kuwait which it now refers to as a subsidiary in all the international organizations and in equal footing? c) It is a stated fact that Kuwait existed as an independent political entity long before Iraq came into being. Then how can it be envisaged that the entity that came into existence first is regarded as a part of the one which was born at a later stage? This is an attempt that only aims at creating confusion, an attempt that runs contrary to all logic. d) Iraq claims that there was no accredited agreement between Kuwait and Iraq regarding the demarcation of boundaries and that it had not recognized any agreement in this regard. To this claim we have the following to say: 1) The regime of Saddam Hussein does not honor any international rules or norms. Hence it is not surprising to see this regime denying the existence of an agreement that defines or demarcates the boundaries between Iraq and Kuwait. If it was Saddam Hussein himself who cancelled the 1975 agreement he signed with Iran that defines his country's borders with Iran with no apparent justifiable reasons apart from personal whims and fancies, then it would be no surprise if the same Saddam rejected another agreement signed by some body other than him. Here we refer to the late president Ahmad Hassan Al-Bakr of whom Saddam was deputy then. If the world accepted such behavior, then this would mark the beginning of unprecedented chaos in international relations. 2) The provisions of the 1936 Agreement referred to above were executed immediately after the signing of the agreement and cultural and economic relations were established with Iraq and diplomatic representation exchanged between Iraq and Kuwait. Thus from the legal point of view Iraq is considered to have recognized the agreement and its provisions since it implemented the greater part of it. It is an established rule that this implementation would not take effect until after the agreement was put before the council of ministers or the revolutionary command council. Can it be then said that after all this long time the revolutionary command council had not endorsed the agreement? Aren't the political, economic, social and cultural acts an implicit, if not explicit, proof of the endorsement of this agreement and all its provisions? Finally, if we conceded Iraq has a case against Kuwait that should be discussed then why did Iraq refuse to respond to Kuwait's repeated calls during the past years to put the Iraqi claims before the International Court of Justice? Why did Iraq refuse the Kuwaiti suggestion for the formation of an Arab commission to look into the border dispute between the two countries? If Iraq refuses to recognize the borders with Kuwait because they are colonial borders, as it claims, then who defined Iraq's borders with its other neighbors? Can Iraq accept the signed border agreement including what it signed with Kuwait in 1963 in this regard? Iraqi breach of the international law and conventions is indeed a shameful matter for itself and a sad matter for all Arabs and Muslims and it is natural that Iraq should bear its consequences in full. However, the policy of "divide and rule" specially when applied among Arab countries and within individual Arab states is a very serious thing that requires the utmost degree of precaution and prudence. In playing this card the Iraqi regime resorts to cheap methods of conspiracy. It confuses issues with hollow slogans and foments ill feelings among the Arabs and between the Arabs and the rest of the world. By so doing Iraq is seeking to start a fire that would leave behind trails of destruction and misery and Iraq can not live under the illusion that it can be immune from its flames. From the above it is clear that there is no evidence whatsoever of what Saddam Hussein claims as being Iraq's historic rights in Kuwait. Saddam is just blowing into cold ashes to justify his heinous crime of invading Kuwait. What we have said is substantiated by the fact that when the Iraqi regime committed its outrageous crime it never said it was regaining Iraqi territories but said its forces entered Kuwait in response to calls from the free Kuwaiti people whom it claimed had toppled the governing regime. To back this allegation it invented what it called the interim Kuwaiti government. This illegal government then announced the dismissal of the emir, dissolved the National Assembly and formed the government of free Kuwait. All these measures were taken with no mention of historical Iraqi rights in Kuwait. Not only that but the regime announced it would begin withdrawing its forces from Kuwait starting from August 5 if there were no threats to the security of Iraq or Kuwait. This confirms the fact that the concept of so called historical rights has never been one of the reasons claimed by the Iraqi regime to justify its storming of Kuwait. Even when the Iraqi regime started to prepare for its invasion to Kuwait it made no reference to the historical rights but accused Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates of exceeding their quota of oil production decided by OPEC and that they flooded the market with oil and consequently led to a drop in oil prices in a way that greatly affected the Iraqi economy. Until August 7 the concept of historical rights was not in the agenda. The interim government in Kuwait announced that the country had become a republic which means that Kuwait was still an independent and sovereign state. However the following day, August 8, the Iraqi regime announced that it had formally annexed Kuwait on the basis that it was originally part of its territory and thus the concept of the historical rights was introduced into the political stage of the crisis. Such random actions are a clear indication that the regime of Saddam Hussein has been fabricating false statements and lies to justify its invasion of Kuwait. If the regime was truly sincere with itself it would have announced from the beginning the idea of Iraq's historical rights in Kuwait but its course of action clearly indicates that it has never sided with logic and reality and that it was fabricating lies that only exist in its mind but were believed by no one except the regime. No matter how Saddam and his clique tried to alter reality with their lies and fabrication, truth will prevail and will be known to the entire world because lies will never overshadow the light of the sun. Third: To back his lies Saddam spoke of what he termed as three incidents of history which when examined will crumble before the Saddam claims that in 1938 the Kuwaiti Legislative Assembly demanded that Kuwait be united with Iraq and as a result Sheikh Ahmad Al-Jaber dissolved the assembly. This claim can not hold out when challenged because there isn't any thing either in documents or in reality that prove this to be correct. What happened was that Iraq under King Ghazi who was seeking expansion and the establishment of the Fertile Crescent, the region extending from Syria to the Arabian Gulf, exploited the democratic atmosphere prevailing in Kuwait at that time and began inciting Kuwaitis into opposing the authorities under the illusion that he could influence the Kuwaiti people. When he failed to achieve his goal King Ghazi sent a force to invade Kuwait, as substantiated by the British documents, but the attempt failed as will fail the attempt of the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein with the grace of Allah. The call for annexing Kuwait was not made by Kuwaitis as claimed by Saddam Hussein but it was instigated by King Ghazi himself. To Saddam's claims that in 1958 Nuri Al-Saeed demanded the annexation of Kuwait during a meeting of the Baghdad Pact we answer by saying that a demand made by a prime minister for the annexation of a neighboring country can not be taken to mean a right that an independent country is part of another. Truth shows that the basis on which Nuri Al-Saeed made his demand was to push Kuwait into joining the Baghdad Pact so that the alliance can benefit materially from Kuwait's membership in this organization. However, the late Sheikh Abdullah Al-Salim the then ruler of Kuwait rejected this because he had no desire to see his country linked with foreign pacts. He also rejected the call by Nuri Al-Saeed for Kuwait to join a Hashemite federation he planned to establish grouping Iraq and Jordan in order to confront the unity that was established between Egypt and Syria. In 1961 and after Kuwait's independence, President Abdul-kareem Qasim of Iraq recognized it and congratulated Sheikh Abdullah Al-Salim. But he soon changed his mind and demanded that Kuwait be united with Iraq in an attempt to benefit from Kuwait's resources and divert the attention of the Iraqi people away from the country's deteriorating situation under his rule. This is the same course now being pursued and the same goal sought by Saddam Hussein. Despite being a lunatic and an insane leader Abdulkarim Qasim was to some extent wiser than Saddam Hussein since his threats were only verbal and he refrained to attack bearing in mind the negative effects this would have on his regime and his country. On the contrary Saddam took no cognizance of this and proved to be more lunatic than his predecessor. Anyhow, the odd situation resulting from Abdulkarim Qasim's demand that Kuwait be part of Iraq ended with the 1963 revolution and the signing of an agreement between the two sisterly states (Iraq and Kuwait) in which Iraq recognized the independence of Kuwait within its boundaries defined by the memoranda exchanged between Sheikh Ahmad Al-Jaber and Nouri Al-Saeed in 1932. Thus we find out that all the evidence stated by Saddam Hussein to justify his invasion and occupation of the state of Kuwait are empty allegations. Neither the attempts by King Ghazi nor those by Abdulkarim Qasim to annex Kuwait gave Iraq any rights or justification to annex Kuwait which has been an independent and sovereign state recognized by the international community and an active member of Arab, Islamic and international organizations; playing a role more active than that of Iraq. Kuwait is fully independent of Iraq since its establishment on non-Iraqi territory and enjoyed defined borders with Iraq since the Ottoman rule. These borders were stated in an international agreement recognized by the two countries exercising influence in the region at the time (Britain and the Ottoman state). These borders were reaffirmed again during Al-Aqir Conference in 1932 when Iraq inquired with Britain about this matter. They were-reaffirmed for the third time in 1932 in the memos exchanged between the two sides and for the fourth time in 1963 in the agreement signed by Ahmad Hassan Al-Bakr on behalf of Iraq and Sheikh Sabah Al-Salim Al-Sabah on behalf of Kuwait. Any attempt to disregard and violate these borders is regarded as aggression whose perpetrator should be punished. Study No. II Kuwait, a Legal reality The historical and political facts contained in the previous study show that Kuwait has never been under the Ottoman sovereignty. Conventions, agreements, correspondence and events show that since its creation as a political entity in 1921 Iraq has implicitly agreed to its borders with Kuwait. It must be stated here that modern Iraq was made up of three regions that were stripped off the Ottoman state; namely Mawsil, Baghdad and Basra. It is a stated fact that Kuwait has never been part of Basra at any time since Turkey did not extend its authority over Kuwait and the ruler of Kuwait enjoyed actual authority. According to Professor Majeed Khadouri, being one of the countries that inherited the Ottoman state Iraq can not claim sovereign rights over lands that Turkey had not assigned to it. In reference to Qasim's claims Professor Khadouri adds that Qasim was not able to legally justify his demands and so he tended to change the basis on which he built his demands from legal to historical and political. In order to substantiate its false claims Iraq has to prove the following: 1) That Kuwait was legally part of the Ottoman Empire and that it was administered as a province of Basra region. 2) That Iraq inherited the Turkish sovereignty or authority over Kuwait from the Ottoman Empire. 3) That Iraq continuously sustained its active demands of sovereignty over Kuwait. Regarding the first condition it is evident from the above that the family of Al-Sabah ruled Kuwait free of any direct or outside intervention since 1756 and that the independent status of Kuwait was maintained even after Midhat Pasha, the governor of Baghdad, launched his expedition against Ahsa in 1871. To this is added that historical facts show that the Ottoman Empire has never gained the right of sovereignty over Kuwait which was neither occupied nor subjected to the Turkish rule. Since the claims that Kuwait (formed part of the Turkish Empire) has no historical or legal backing then the contention that Turkey enjoyed no legal status in Kuwait is correct and substantiated by facts. As for the second condition even if we assumed that the Ottoman state had sovereignty over Kuwait, an assumption far from reality, does this mean that Iraq as a country that inherited the Turkish Basra region did inherit this right by legal means from Kuwait? It is known that following its defeat in the First World War Turkey signed the August 10, 1920 Sevres agreement. According to article 94 of the said agreement Mesopotamia and Syria were recognized as independent states under the British mandate. It was also agreed that the borders of the previous Turkish domain would be defined accordingly by the parties concerned. However, the agreement made no mention of Kuwait as being one of those Turkish domain. Although the agreement had not been ratified it could nevertheless be regarded as a valuable proof to the actual situation of the borders of the new state (Iraq). The Lausanne Agreement of 24.7.1923 which had been ratified affirmed the provisions concerning the assignment by Turkey of its properties mentioned in the Sevres agreement. Article 27 of the Lausanne Agreement, as the case with Article 139 of the Sevres agreement includes paragraphs indicating Turkey waiving off all its authority and law to the citizens of the regions which later came under the sovereignty or protection of the foreign forces that had been part of agreements with Turkey. Consequently, as a country which inherited previous Turkish territories, Iraq is legally bound by the restrictions imposed by the Lausanne Agreement on Turkey. In other words even if it is assumed that Turkey had sovereignty over Kuwait Iraq could not inherit this since Turkey had assigned these under the terms of Lausanne Agreement of 1923. While Iraq was later on subjected to the system of mandate under Article 22 of the charter of the League of Nations, Kuwait remained as it had been before; a distinctive territory under British protection. This view is backed by Professor Khadouri who says Iraq as a country which inherited the Turkish Empire can not claim sovereign rights over territories which Turkey did not assign to it. As far as the third condition is concerned and for Iraq to prove its claims over Kuwait, Iraq should prove that its demands over Kuwait had been continuous and were not interrupted. This departs from reality and can be interpreted as an acceptance of the continued existence of Kuwait as an independent political entity in addition to the fact that the exchange of letters affirmed the existing borders between Iraq and Kuwait which were contained in other letters exchanged on April 4 and April 19, 1923 between Sheikh Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah and Sir Cox. Although the borders between Iraq and Kuwait were not demarcated their definition as stated in the exchange of letters in 1932 and their ratification in the 1963 agreement affirms the commitment of the two countries in a clear and unequivocal manner. Since Iraq had recognized the independence of Kuwait in October 4, 1963, a recognition that was made by the now ruling Bath regime in Iraq, the two countries established close diplomatic and political relations based on full respect of each other's sovereignty over its lands. Although they have not reached agreement on the demarcation of the borders, the recognition means the affirmation of Kuwait's sovereignty and its existing borders in general. The legal fact and reality of Kuwait are further strengthened and consolidated by Kuwait's joining the United Nations and the Arab League immediately after its independence and the acceptance of it as member in all international, Arab and regional organizations.