Papers of the War Cabinet's Eastern Committee [‎40v] (80/544)

2
dead for all practical purposes. I he Chairman said that the toreign^
Office had since replied to Sir Reginald (F.O. telegram No. 780,
dated 18th June, 1918) in the following sense
“ With reference to your telegram No. 948 of the 16th
June the question in the last sentence of your telegram will be
considered immediately by the Eastern Committee ; in the
meantime you should impress upon the Kings agent that Jemal
delivered his speech in order to cause disunion among the Allies
and had published it in the ‘ Mostakbil,’ a paper whose policy
had, in spite of the French Government’s repeated warnings,
consistently favoured French annexations.”
Sir Mark Sykes said he had prepared a brief memorandum,
which he handed to the Committee. In this memorandum he had
pointed out that the King of the Hedjaz had frequently been given
the outline and detail of the Agreement in question, both by
himself, M. Picot, Colonel Bremond, and Commander Hogarth, who
was specially sent down for the purpose ; and it seemed almost
incredible that this should be the first the King had heard of Jemal’s
speech, though it may be true that this was the first he had seen of
the “Mostakbil” report thereof; that the facts that were affecting
the King’s mind probably were (l) the rumours that in Mesopotamia
w T e were pursuing an annexationist policy ; (2) the rumours that we
have discussed peace terms, involving Turkey’s tutelage over Arabs,
with the Turks ; (3) our partiality for Ibn Saud; (4) the French
unwillingness and reluctance to adopt a pro-Arab policy instead of a
sectarian policy; (5) our military set-backs east of the Jordan;
(6) Jemal’s intrigues, the last two items being the most important, and
probably carrying the most weight; that he believed that we should
inform the King that we should not approve of any settlement, in
any area where the population is preponderantly Arab or Arabic
speaking, which did not meet with the wishes of the people, and was
not consonant with the principle of the consent of the governed ;
and, finally, if the French could join us in giving such assurances, it
would be a great advantage. Sir Mark said that in the “ Mostakbil ”
there had also recently been a leading article to the effect that Syria
must be annexed to France. Two Persian agents had come to him
in considerable alarm about this article. He had suggested that a
further article should at once appear in the same paper putting the
matter on the right lines.
The Chairman thought that what they wished to tell the King
of the Hedjaz was that the old Agreement no longer applied ; but
before definitely stating so we should have to consult the French.
Mr. Balfour suggested adding “ and the Italians.”
Sir Mark Sykes thought that the King might be at once j
informed that, so far as we were concerned, the old Agreement no ,
longer applied, subject to the concurrence of the French.
Lord Hardinge suggested that we should adopt the formula
which had been accepted in the case of the Anglo-Russian Agree
ment in Persia and say that the Agreement wns temporarily in
suspense.”
General Smuts thought it inadvisable to make any statement
about the Sykes-Picot Agreement, or, indeed, any large statement of
policy:
The Chairman suggested that Sir Reginald Wingate should be
informed that the British Government were satisfied with the
assurances already given, but before making a further statement
they felt the French Government must be consulted.
General Macdonogh pointed out that the whole matter had been
threshed out last January, and said that on the 4th February a
telegram (F.O. No. 163) had been sent to Sir Reginald asking that
a message should be transmitted to King Hussein to the effect that
the Government were touched by the readiness and frankness with