Papers of the War Cabinet's Eastern Committee [‎64r] (127/544)

3
The Coir'mittee decided—
That the Foreign Office should reply to Sir C. Marling,
pointing out the very serious view taken by His Majesty's
Government of the present situation and instructing him to
interview the Officer Commanding the Cossack division on
the lines suggested by the War Office and report to the
Foreign Office. If the force continued to be used in a
manner hostile to us, Sir C. Marling should be given
discretionary power to stop payment of the officers and
N.C.O's.
The Addition to
the Committee of a
Kepresentative of
the Ministry of
Information.
*
2. The Committee had before them copy of a letter, dated the
29th June (E.C.-741), from Mr. Gaselee of the Ministry of
Information, to Sir Mark Sykes, saying that Lord Beaverbrook
considered it desirable that the Ministry of Information should have
a representative on the Eastern Committee, and suggesting for the
purpose the name of Mr. Cunliffe Owen. Appended to the above
letter was a memorandum to Lord Curzon by Sir Mark Sykes,
pointing out that the Eastern Committee only decides on questions of
policy ; and that Mr. Shuckburgh, Mr. Oliphant. and himself were
usually the agents through which the Committee deals with
particular individuals and affairs connected with the Committee’s
work. In Sir Mark’s view, the best plan wonld be for Mr. Owen.to
keep in touch, in regard to work in their respective spheres, with
the three said officials, who could report to their immediate superiors
in questions of administration and through them to the Eastern
Committee on questions of policy. As regards propaganda, Sir
Mark’s view was: ^a) In Turkey and Arabia there is something to be
done; (b) in Persia he could not see what could be done ; (c) in
India and Afghanistan the Indian Government alone could decide
what could be done and alone would be qualified to do so ; (d) in
Turkestan and Siberia no one could advise as to what would be
possible in this direction ; (e) in China and Japan only a local agent
could act; (/) in Burma, Siam, and Cochin China there was very
little worth doing; and (g) Ceylon would come under the same
category as India.
General Macdonogh gave certain particulars in regard to Mr.
Cunliffe Owen’s qualifications for propaganda work. He said that
he had seen Sir Wm. Tyrrell, Mr. Owen, and others, and the idea
was that Colonel Keyes (E.C. 10th Meeting, Minute 5), on his return
from Stockholm should be in charge of propaganda in Persia and
Turkestan. Mr. Owen had no knowledge of Turkey and Persia as
most of his time had been spent in the Far East The suggestion
was that Mr. Owen should be Lord Beaverbrook’s representative,
with Keyes under him as an expert in Middle Eastern affairs.
The Chairman said that the Committee decided at their 10th
Meeting that the Committee could not itself undertake propaganda
in the East, although it would exeicise general control, but that
such work should be conducted by the Ministry of Information in
consultation with the Foreign Office and 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. , who would
refer to the Committee if advice or instructions were required. He
himself saw no ground for having a representative of the Ministry
on the Committee, which was concerned with policy, not with
propaganda.
Mr. Balfour said that he agreed with Lord Curzon and also
generally with Sir Mark Sykes’ paper. He, felt, however, that
propaganda among Central ^sian Moslems must be conducted from
India.
The Chairman agreed, but pointed out the extreme difficulty of
obtaining access to Turkestan from India, there being only four
channels of entrance, viz., by the Karakoram and Kashgar, through
the Pamirs, and through Afghanistan, and via Seistan and Meshed ;