File 488/1920 Pt 1 ‘Arabia:- General question of subsidies to Arab Rulers.’ [‎11r] (17/163)

( 4 )
®
2 .
subsidy of Rs.17,000 a month - say £20,000 a year; end the
trihe have, I "believe, behaved very -well. The Inter
Departmental Conference, after hearing Miss Bell last June,
accepted the necessity of sub si di sing Bin Rashid - but the
amount was in dispute. Colonel Wilson had suggested £42,000 a
year, which he tnought was the least we could give, if we were
giving Bin Saud £60,000. I do not think we need accept the
analogy - Fahad probably furnishes a better one. But my point
is that unless we are going to discontinue Fahad»s subsidy and
not give one to Bin Rashid, we cannot discontinue Bin 3aud ! s
without at once throwing him into hostility. It is neither to
our interest, nor consistent with our good faith, to throw Bin
*
Saud over without a cause, and he has given us none - quite the
contrary. There are independent reasons why, in my opinion,
v;e should not only give him a subsidy, but give him a larger
one than the others. But for the moment all I am concerned to
suggest is that the desert Sheikhs with whom we are in direct
contact must be treated on the same principle; and that we must
subsidise one and therefore all three.
(3) There is on the other side of the desert an ambitious
Arao State under a Mandatory which is not only apt at
intrigue but is jealous and suspicious of us. The influence
of Damascus may extend as far into our sphere as Jp.uf: against
it we can only pit directly the counter-influence of our
political officers at Kereh and Salt, which - if those two marts
are developed - may become very great, but has not yet
established itself. in any case there is in the desert a
great field for French intrigue: the tribes want money, and will
turn where they can get it. it is worth our while to pay them
a retaining fee.