File 869/1904 Pt 1 'Arms Traffic: - Red Sea, Africa & Aden' [‎260v] (525/580)

2
willingness to co-operate in, measures which may check the indiscriminate
introduction of arms into their African Protectorate and their possessions on
the Red Sea littoral. Prance alone of the parties concerned appears at present
to feel no inconvenience from the existing state of affairs. On the other
hand, with the co-operation of the Prench secured, and the importation of arms
forbidden both at Jibuti and at Maskat, we believe that an end might he put
to this obnoxious traffic, not only on the seaboard of Southern Arabia, on the /
Somali Coast, and on the Red Sea littoral, but also in the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. and
throughout the waters of the Middle East. The prohibition appears to be one
which might be enforced without practical difficulty in the case of merchant
steamers; and in the absence of regular entrepots, stocked with arms brought
from Europe in such vessels, and lying within the ordinary beat of native craft,
obvious difficulties would be placed in the way of a continuance of smuggling
by the Arab dhows which now habitually engage in the traffic. The restriction
should, of course, apply not only to consignments manifested for Jibuti as their
final destination, but also to all arms intended for transhipment at that port
except under most stringent conditions of surveillance and control.
4 . We are aware that the question of the interpretation which should be
placed on clause 6 of the Agreement of 1888, and of the limitations which
should be held to restrict its application, have more than once formed the subject
of discussion with the Prench Government : that it may be held that our own
action in regard to the importation of arms into Abyssinia in the past amounted
to an infringement of the understanding, at any rate until the negus at some
date before August 1893 adhered to the Brussels Act; and that in 1890,
on the failure of the negotiations for the tripartite arrangement, Mons.
Nisard*observed to our Ambassador in Paris that, in view of our attitude, he
presumed that both Governments had recovered full liberty of action. We also
notice that the Prench Government appear to consider that the provisions of the
Brussels Agreement have caused the earlier instrument to fall into abeyance.
We find nothing, however, to suggest that His Majesty’s Government have
ever definitely surrendered their rights under the Agreement of 1888 ; it appears
to us that we are still entitled to appeal to its provisions ; and this seems also to
have been the view of His Majesty’s Government, when in 1901 Lord
Lansdowne instructed our Ambassador in Paris to refer to the engagement set
out in Article 6. The Prench Government, though professing themselves
to be guided by the provisions of the Brussels Convention, admitted their
obligations, and actually took formal measures to forbid the traffic. The trade,
however, still appears to continue with unabated vigour, and, in view of the
importance of the question, we should be glad if His Majesty’s Government
could take the opportunity of the cordial relations at present existing with
Prance to induce the Republican Government to agree to measures which may
lead to the final removal or at least to a considerable mitigation of this long
standing evil.
We have the honour to be,
Sib,
Your moat obedient, humble servants,
mo: