Papers written by Curzon on the Near and Middle East [‎11r] (21/348)

[This Document is the Property of Bis Britannic Majesty s Government.j
l
EASTERN [March Eh]
CONFIDENTIAL. Section 1.
[21940] No. 1.
Earl Curzon to M. Cambon.
Your Excellency, Foreign Office, March 19, 1919.
I RECEIVED from His Majesty’s Ambassador in Paris some time ago a copy
of a note addressed to him by M. Pichon on the 6th February in which the french
Government complained of the attitude adopted by certain British military officers
and officials in the occupied territories of Syria and Mesopotamia. The text of this
note was doubtless also communicated to your Excellency, but 1 have the honour
to enclose a copy for convenience of reference.
His Majesty’s Government were greatly surprised at both the tone and sub
stance of this communication. They could not but regret that the french Govern
ment should have thought it necessary to make these accusations couched in so
unusual and even unfriendly a form, at a time when the Peace Conference is
engaged in the French capital in endeavouring to reach a lasting settlement of all
international disputes. Indeed, I had hoped, particularly after my conversations
with your Excellency, in which we have reviewed the entire situation in a very
different spirit, that it might not have been necessary to take up the challenge so
sharply thrown down at Paris. However, during the last few days there has arrived
another long list of alleged grievances handed by M. Pichon in Paris to Lord Milner,
reflecting the same frame of mind, and in some cases reiterating the same complaints.
In these circumstances I have no alternative but to address to your Excellency the
more sustained and serious reply from which I would gladly have abstained. I
must, however, make this preliminary observation. \our Excellency will readily
understand that the persons accused by a friendly and Allied Government of having
so far forgotten their duty as to enter into intrigues of the nature indicated in
M. Pichon's notes must be given the opportunity of defending themselves, and that
it will, therefore, be impossible for me to deal in detail with the various accusations
made until the Oommanders-in-chief of the two armies have been consulted and
have been able to question their subordinates. The fact that the French Government
have made such an enquiry inevitable both by the nature of the charges and the form
in which they have consiaered it necessary to present them, is regrettable, since an
enquiry on these lines can scarcely be conducive to that harmony and friendly feeling
between the officers and members of the two nations which His Majesty’s Govern
ment so earnestlv desire to see established in every theatre of action.
But M. Pichon’s two notes raise, besides the more personal questions, others
of a more general character, on which I have more than once had the honour of
expressing to your Excellencv the views of His Majesty s Government.. The
atmosphere of mistrust which has engendered these accusations has arisen in my
opinion in the first place from the conclusion of an agreement between om two
Governments which a wider knowledge at the time would have shown to be im
practicable, and which the progress of events has long since, rendered obsolete, and
in the second place from the attempt to apply its terms and conditions without
modification to a position to which they are entirely unsuited.
There would appear, moreover, to exist fundamental differences ol opinion
between the two Governments as to the circumstances in which this Agreement of
1916 was intended to take effect, and as to the extent to which it has already been
affected by subseqent declarations and arrangements. In the opinion of His
Majesty’s Government, the whole text and spirit of the Agreement show that it
was not meant to become operative save as a part of the final settlement of all matters
arising out of the war. So long as a state of war continues—and I may point out
in passing that it still exists—a military regime must be maintained m full force
in enemy occupied territory. Such is understood to be the considered view ctf the
French Government with regard to the Western Front; and it is obvious that the
principle, with which His Majesty’s Government are in full agreement, must be
held to apply with even greater Wee to semi-civilized territories such as those
which are now under consideration. Such a regime is obviously incompatible with
[2863 t—1]