Papers of the War Cabinet's Eastern Committee [‎262v] (524/544)

10
the Peace Conference at all ? Reading through the papers, I cannot be quite
clear as to what the attitude of 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. and the Foreign Office is upon
this point. Some time ago Captain Wilson, at llaghdad, suggested that we should
declare a British protectorate over Bahrein, Koweit, &c., and to that it was at
once pointed out that such action might raise difficult questions at the Peace
Conference. 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. , in their paper about the future of these parts of the
world, advise against the question being raised at the Peace Conference at all.
On the other hand, in another paper, they say that our sole right to conclude
treaties with some of these chiefs—I think they are referring for the moment to the
Idrisi, the Imam of Sana’a, and the Sheikh of Mavia—ought to be recognised by
the Powers. Personally, I wonder whether the Peace Conference will have time to
deal with these matters at all, or whether it is competent to deal with them, and my
own inclination would be as far as possible to keep the whole of these matters away
from it. Our relations with almost all these chiefs date from a lung time past. They
have reference to the safety of our Indian Empire, the policing of the seas, and matters
which concern the East rather than the West, and I think that we should take the
same line about them and our relations with them that the French, for instance, would
take if anybody attempted to bring up at the Peace Conference the relations into which
they may have entered with the hinterland chiefs of Tunis or Algeria. The thing
would not be dreamt of for a moment. It may be said that the position of Turkey in
the neighbourhood of this scene places the matter in a different, perspective, and it may
be argued—I think I have seen something in a Foreign Office paper which Eads me to
think that they would regard it as a good thing—that our general position in that part
of the world should be recognised. That may be so, if the attempt to secure
recognition does not involve the digging up of each treaty with each chief, and a
minute investigation of these very complicated arrangements that I have been speaking
of here. I suppose that if any questions were asked about the matter at the Conference
we should be perfectly willing to lay our cards upon the table, and to say that the
history of the past century has driven us into these relations with all these people ; that
they are vital to our position in the East, and not merely to the safety of the Indian
Empire, but to trade, to freedom from piracy on the seas—in fact, to the freedom of the
seas—and we should say “ any explanation that you want us to give, we shall be most
happy to give.” We would willingly do that, but 1 hope that we shall not encourage
any of these people to form the idea that their fate is a legitimate subject of discussion
at the Peace Conference, or that any decision of the Peace Conference will be required
upon them. That is what I say by instinct rather than by any formal process of
reasoning, and I put the case in this rather tentative way with a view of ascertaining
what the views of the Foreign Office and 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. are about the matter. I think
that is all I need say in general preface.
MR. MONTAGU : A certain part of the territories which you have been discussing
this morning is dealt with by Resolution No. 1, which we passed the other day on the
Hejaz and Arabia, namely, “ It is desirable that the special position of Great Britain
and Arabia should be recognised by the Powers, as it has already been with the French
Government.” I presume that would apply, at any rate, to Central Arabia and the East
Coast ; and that really does seem to me to show that at any rate at our last meeting,
when we discussed these things, we did contemplate the possibility of our position in
Arabia being discussed.
LORD ROBERT CECIL : My recollection of that proposition is this—that I
urged that it would be a pity to bring it up, since the French had already given us
recognition of our special position, and that the only other Power that was likely to
raise any question about it was Italy ; and that it did not really matter very much to
us whether they did nor did not raise it, and, therefore, it should only be brought up if
Mr. Balfour, or whoever is there at the time, saw an opportunity of clearing it out of
the way, casually so to speak, without bringing it before the Conference. But it seems
to me the more difficult question is whether we ought not to sweep out of the way the
Turkish claims. My view of the Peace Co?iference is that it is a conference to make
peace, and we ought, as far as possible, to avoid any discussions there of any subject
that is not directly connected with making peace between the belligerents. They will
have heaps to do, in any case. When we come to say what is to be the position of
Turkey as the result of the war, 1 do not see quite how we can avoid saying, “ Well, we
want the abandonment by Turkey of Syria, Mesopotamia, and so on, and all Turkish
claims in Arabia.” I do not see myself how you can avoid saying that.