File 3372/1916 Pt 2 'Arabia: French and Italian policy' [‎84r] (176/498)

APPENDIX I.
COMMITTEE OF IMPERIAL DEFENCE.
SUB-COMMITTEE ON THE ARMS TRAFFIC.
I rk ms oi' Reference. “ io consider the general question of the Traffic
m Arms after the War with special reference to Native Races.”
First meeting held at 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. on Monday the 8th January 1917.
Present:
Lord Islington (Chairman).
\ ice-Admiral Sir E. Slade (Admiralty).
Sir William Tyrrell (Coreirjn Office).
Major S. S. W. Paddon (War Office).
Mr. H. d. Read (Colonial Office).
Mr. J. E. Shuckblrgii ( 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. ) (tiecretarij).
E I he question was discussed in its general aspect. The view was
taken that, assuming Germany does not regain her African Colonies after
the war, the only European Power whose interest in the arms traffic is
likely to be antagonistic to our own is France. Mr. Read drew attention to
the Draft Convention drawn up at the Brussels Arms Traffic of 1908-09,
which contained the material for a satisfactory solution of the whole
question, so far as Africa is concerned, but which was never signed owing
to the opposition of France, although accepted in principle by all the other
Powers represented at the Conference. The Sub-Committee was unanimously
of opinion that an understanding with the French Government on the arms
question should form part of the general settlement at the end of the war.
2. The question was then considered with reference to three areas mainly
affected, viz.: — (1) Maskat and the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. ; (2) Jibuti and the East
African littoral ; and (3) West Africa.
MASKAT AND PERSIAN GULF The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. .
3. As regards Maskat, which for many years served as the main
distributing centre of arms, &c., for the whole Middle East, the situation has
been governed in the past by the fact that the local Sultan has commercial
treaties with the United States (1833) and France (1844) providing for the
unrestricted import and export to and from his territories of all kinds of
merchandise, as well as a i: Commercial Declaration concluded with
Holland in 1877, providing for reciprocal “ most-favoured-nation ” treatment
between the two countries. The Sultan’s international position is further
regulated by the joint Anglo-French Declaration of 1862, by which Great
Britain and France undertook reciprocally to respect the independence of
the ruler of Maskat. Neither Holland nor the United States have shown any
disposition to embarrass us by an assertion of their treaty rights ; indeed,
both Powers agreed at the Brussels Conference to forego their rights in so
far as the arms traffic was concerned, provided the two other treaty Lowers
(Great Britain and France) did the same. Germany h not in treaty
relations with Maskat. The great difficulty has been with 4 ranee, who up
to 1914, declined to give up her rights under the Treaty of 1844, or to alhnv
the Sultan a free hand to control the traffic, except on conditions which His
Majesty’s Government were not prepared to accept. France, it should be
S 337 75—3/17