Papers of the War Cabinet's Eastern Committee [‎72r] (143/544)

5
(ii.) A telegram should be sent to General Allenby asking his
opinion as to the steps that would require to be taken
to meet French views in the event of his forces advancing
into Syria.
(iii.) The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs should be asked
to sound M. Gambon tentatively on the subject of Syria r
on receipt of General Allenby's reply. \
Declaration to the 4 . Hie Committee proceeded to discuss Annex (C) to Sir Mark
King ol the Ilejaz. Sykes’s memorandum (E.C.—825), “Declaration to the King of
the Ilejaz.’’
The Chairman renewed his objection, which had been stated
at the previous meeting, to the inclusion in paragraph 5 of the
proposed declaration of the words about annexation. No such
disclaimer has appeared in any of the previous declarations of
policy or assurances. On the contrary, we had, from the start,
made a reservation as to Basrah which it might be an absolute
necessity to incorporate in British territory at the close of the war;
and it vas quite gratuitous to volunteer pledges now for which
no one had asked, and which might be a source of grave
inconvenience in the future.
It was decided—
To delete these words, the Committee being of opinion that the
succeeding phrase about consulting the wishes of the people
* in disposing of the occupied territories were sufficient for
the purpose.
The Committee then proceeded to discuss the general case for
the issue of a new declaration.
Sir Mark Sykes said that it was most important to get the
French on the right lines as regards Syria before our troops entered
Syrian territory. The French were resolutely opposed to the
cancellation of the agreement of 191G, obsolete as that agreement
had been shown to be. If we could induce the French to associate
themselves with us in some such declaration as that before the
Committee, our Allies would be definitely committed to what
virtually amounted to an abrogation of the agreement.
General Smuts thought that confusion was bound to be caused
by the varying formulae adopted in several paragraphs of the draft
declaration, and that they would give rise to suspicion and doubt,
especially in an oriental mind.
Lord Bobert Cecil said that he agreed with General Smuts,
and suggested that the first four paragraphs of the declaration might
be eliminated.
Mr. Montagu raised the question whether it was desirable, as
proposed in the preamble, to associate ourselves in any way with
the French in a declaration that embraced Mesopotamia with which
the French had nothing to do.
The Chairman, in reply, suggested that the declaration, when
amended by the Committee, might be made on behalf of His
^ Majesty’s Government alone in the lirst instance, and that the French
might afterwards associate themselves with it. He reminded the
Committee that in January, 1918, Sir R. Wingate had recommended,
in view of the “growing uneasiness among Arabs about the Entente’s
intentions for Arab countries,” that he should be authorised to give
King Hussein the following definite assurances :—
I. That His Majesty’s Government is still determined to secure
Arab independence, and to fulfil the promises made at
the beginning of the Hejaz revolt.
2 That His Majesty’s Government will countenance no perma
nent foreign or European occupation of Palestine, Irak
(except the province of Basrah), or Syria after the war.
8 . That these districts will be in the possession of their natives,
and that foreign interference with Arab countries will
be restricted to assistance and protection.
[365-20]
C