Papers of the War Cabinet's Eastern Committee [‎154r] (307/544)

3
doubted whether the President quite realised what this involved.
He himself doubted the advisability of defining at all precisely at
the Conference what we proposed to do in Persia, as he disliked
unnecessary definitions in international matters.
Mr. Montagu asked whether it would not be possible for us at
the Peace Conference either (a) to arrange to clear out of Persia
altogether, which he thought was impossible, or (b) get a mandate to
remain there. He felt it was most desirable that our position in
Persia should be regularised, that is to say, we should be
empowered at the Conference to control Persian administration for a
stated period, or, failing this, that we should clear out. He himself
* hoped that it might be possible for us to adopt more or less the line
indicated by Sir P. Cox.
The Chairman thought that the matter would probably solve
itself. What we wished to do was to prevent Persia from falling
^ into chaos. It was evident that the Judson Mission were much
impressed by what we had done and were doing in Persia, and we
might be certain that Dr. Judson would not fail to communicate
his impressions to the President. As regards Mr. Montagus
suggestion, that we might seek power at the Conlerence to contiol
Persian administration fora certain number of years, he himself felt
that a limited mandate was dangerous. He would prefer that
Persian matters should not be raised at the Conference at all. At
the same time, in view of the likelihood of then being raised, vvc
ought to be prepared with our brief.
The Committee decided—
That the Foreign Office should prepare a paper for the Com
mittee's early consideration on the subject of Persian affairs
and Persian representation at the Peace Conference.
<c.) Position of The Committee had before them telegrams from Sir P. Cox,
Sir P. Sykes. dated the 23rd September (EX'.—1658) and the 29th October
(E.C.-2I37), a telegram from the Viceroy, dated the 9th October
(E.C.-2093), Foreign Office telegram to Sir P. ('ox, dated the 81st
October (E.C.-2140), and a note by the India Office The department of the British Government to which the Government of India reported between 1858 and 1947. The successor to the Court of Directors. , dated the 16th
November (E.C.-23S4, Appendix I).
The Chairman said that Sir P. Sykes position had all along
been ambiguous. It was evident, however, from the Viceroys
tele ora m of the 1st November that the Indian Government intended
to stand by him. In view of this, he did not propose to ask the
Committee to pursue further the question of the wisdom of Sn 1.
Sykes’ actions and policy. The note by the India Office The department of the British Government to which the Government of India reported between 1858 and 1947. The successor to the Court of Directors. before the
Committee suggested that the best way out of the piesent difficult}
would be to summon Sykes to London for the puipose of
consultation. i
Mr. Montagu thought that it was most desirable in the circum
stances to get Sir P. Sykes out of Persia. He still felt that Sykes
had never satisfactorily explained his original action in enteiing
Soulat’s territory. . . . . ,
Mr. Shuckburgh, in reply to a question from the ( hairman, said
that so far as his Department knew our troops had not yet reached
1 the hills. They were believed to have reached Daliki, but had got
no further. Sir P. (-'ox had been informed (E.C.-2140f that, subject
to the safeguards suggested in Id's telegram No. 856 (E C.-1774)
* and to the additional reservation as to the Governor-General of fais,
he might proceed at once with the assurances proposed in regard to
haudin<>- over the South Persia Lilies as soon as he was satisfied that
the roads to Shiraz were open and the surrounding country was
settled.
The Committee decided—
To approve the action suggested in the India Office The department of the British Government to which the Government of India reported between 1858 and 1947. The successor to the Court of Directors. note.