Papers written by Curzon on the Near and Middle East [‎124v] (248/348)

o
4
Lord Curzon requested M. Poincare to read his Smyrna proposals.
M. Poincare replied that he would do so at once.
The conversation then passed to Tangier.
Lord Curzon said that when he was at Cannes, and was discussing the question
of the Pact with M. Briand, he had desired to clear the ground of other outstanding
and troublesome questions. One of them was Tangier. For a long time past abortive
endeavours had been made to reach an agreement. Of the three Powers concerned,
France and Spain had, no doubt, greater interests, but, on historic and strategic
grounds, which he need not now enumerate in detail, British interests were also most
important. When M. Millerand was in London in March 1920, he had asked Lord
Curzon to arrange a discussion between themselves and the Spanish Ambassador.
M. Millerand had, however, been recalled to Paris, and the impending conference
did not materialise. Later, the French Government had declared that the conference
must meet in Paris. The Spanish Government, however, would not go to Paris,
while the French Government would not go to Madrid. Lord Curzon had accordingly
again suggested a conference a irois in London. It had never taken place, and the
situation was daily becoming more acute. There had been difficulties over the port,
the fisheries and other matters. Both the Spanish and the French Governments had
suggested to him that a separate arrangement should be made with them respec
tively, but he had always declined these overtures and had firmly maintained that
the aiscussion and the arrangement must be tripartite. His Majesty's Government
wished to revert to the pre-war position. In 1914 a statute of Tangier had been
drawn up, but fell through on account of the outbreak of war and the failure of the
Spanish Government to agree. He did not want to press M. Poincare unduly at the
moment, but the question was a source of anxiety, and might become worse, and it
was one of those problems which must be cleared up. M. Briand had requested us to
make no public announcement about Tangier lest it should lead to misunderstanding,
and tempt the French public to think that the British Government were raising the
question of the French protectorate. Our recognition of the French protectorate in
Morocco had, however, he had reminded M. Briand, been conditional upon the inter
nationalisation of Tangier.
M. Poincare said that he saw no objection to a London discussion. He could
not, however, go himself, as Parliament would not leave him time. A French repre
sentative eonld go, but the conversations must be private and must not be an open
council.
Lord Curzon said that that was quite understood.
M. Poincare said that the question of Tangier was a delicate one, but there
could be no conflict of interests. France would certainly respect those of Great
Britain. There could be no question of using Tangier as a submarine base, or with
any hostile intent. The matter was a delicate one. not between France and Great
Britain, but between themselves and the Spaniards. Hitherto there had been two
currents of opinion in the French Government on the subject of Tangier. He,
M. Poincare, was quite determined that there should only be one, and that all ques
tions separating France and Great Britain must be eliminated. The Pact could
follow, and set a seal upon this procedure. Any other procedure would be putting
the cart before the horse.
I.ord Curzon said that when M. Poincare had had more time to look round he
would ask him to send a representative of the French Government to London for
the private discussion a trois which was in contemplation. Ix)rd Curzon added that
he would either write or speak to M. Poincare about this a few weeks hence.
.1/. Poincare said that he would await the communication, and do his best to
hasten a solution. His Majesty's Government could always count upon him to do
his best to co-operate loyally and frankly with Great Britain. He, himself, had
regretted the “defaut de methode " and the irregularity of the Franklin-Bouillon
Agreement. It had been a mistake, not a deliberate action.
(The conversation then closed.)