Papers of the War Cabinet's Eastern Committee [‎67v] (134/544)

*2
bir Mark Sykes explained that Khurmah was the place where
the two opposing forces would most probably join battle.
General Macdonogh said that what the War Office desired was,
if possible, to prevent any trouble between Ibn Sand and the King
ot the. Hedjaz. He suggested that a telegram might be sent
enquiring what concessions or promises would be likely to placate
11 n Sami and induce him to break off the threatened expedition.
He thought that the matter might be settled more or less on the
lines suggested by Sir Mark Sykes in his Paper (E C.-766) on the
subject of the Anglo-French Agreement of 1016.
The Committee decided—
Jhat Philby’s report should be awaited.
The Anglo-French
Agreement of
1916.
2 . The Committee resumed the discussion of the Anglo-French
Agreement of 1916, which had been adjourned at the previous
meeting (E.C., 19th Meeting, Minuted).
Sir Mark Sykes asked that the discussion might be again
adjourned, as he was endeavouring to trace a Cabinet decision to
which he had . referred at the previous meeting. His own two
schemes, he said, hung together with our Anglo-French policy in
Palestine, and. Syria. The whole question really depended on
M. Picot s position, in regard to which there was some doubt as
t° w hat the Government’s actual decision had been.
The Chairman said that there were two points he wished to
i img to Sir Mark s notice in respect of his memorandum before the
discussion was resumed. First, in the reply which His Majesty’s
Government had sent on the 11th June to the memorial of seven
Syrians in Egypt, no disclaimer of annexation had been made
\\ mreas in Sir Mark Sykes’ Paper “ A ” the words “no intention of
Hn.nexmg, which had been introduced, appeared gratuitously to
raise the question of Basra. Secondly, in Sir Mark Sykes’ Paper
B, paragraph 4, he felt that the phrase “on [the sanction of the
free nations of the world ” presented an entirely new proposition and
was open to serious criticism. The phrase “ self-determination ” had
hitherto been freely employed with regard to the future of States
and peoples affected by the war. But the condition that “the
sanction of the free nations of the world” was requisite would
appear to involve a unanimous vote at a Peace Conference or by a
-League of Nations, if the latter were ever formed J
It was further suggested that, in Sir Mark Sykes’ Paper, some
other word should be substituted for “ tutelage.”
The Committee decided—
To resume the discussion at the next meeting.
Trans-Caepia and
Turkestan:
Meshed and
Kashgar Missions.
■ TTr S h « ck b«rgh said that two questions, which had been
raised in the Viceroys telegram No. 9188 of the 10 th July (E C-
787), required the decision of the Committee. The first dealt with
the question of the control of officers sent by Dunsterville to
Krasnovodsk. It appeared to the Indian Government that, while
Dunsterulle s outlook at Enzeh or Baku was westward, the action
ot our officers at Krasnoyodsk must influence, and be influenced by
the military and political condition of Trans-Caspia and Turkestan
lor this reason the Government of India preferred that any officers
at Krasnoyodsk should come under Malleson’s orders. Mr. Shuck-
imgh said that 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. supported the suggestion of the
Government of India.