Papers of the War Cabinet's Eastern Committee [‎129v] (258/544)

2
—
Syria:
Anglo-French
Agreement.
Admiral Hope stated that he had received no further com
munication from Commodore Norris on the situation, which had
evidently been cleared up at a meeting between Commodore Norris
and General Thompson at Kasvin.
Lord Robert Cecil asked for any news regarding the move
ments of General Alexielf. In his view it was most important
that we should establish effective wireless communication with
General Alexieff. This was important from a general Russian
point of view even more than from a local point of view of the
Caspian, as General Alexieff’s force was the only fully-organised
force that was purely Russian favourable to us.
General Thwaites stated that a telegram in the sense ol Lord
Robert Cecil’s suggestion had been despatched to the Commander-
in-chief in Mesopotamia that morning. ( |
The Chairman drew attention to paragraphs 4 and 9 of Sir
Percy Cox’s telegram No. 847 (E.C.-1745), in which it was sug
gested that we should make every effort to open up communications |
through Petrovsk and make Petrovsk our naval base on the west
of the Caspian.
General Thwaites stated that it was not clear whether
General Bicharakoy’s position at Petrovsk was still assured. The
question of the subsidy to the latter was still outstanding. The
Commander-in-chief in Mesopotamia had recommended the
subsidy being increased from six to ten million roubles a month,
and a decision upon this question was desirable. He understood
that the matter was now before the Treasury.
The Committee decided—
That a representative of the Treasury should he apked to
attend the next meeting of the Committee, in order to
decide the amount of subsidy to he paid to Bicharakov.
2. The Committee had before them the report of a Confer
ence, which took place at the Foreign Office on the 30th bepteniber,
1918, between the representatives of the Foreign Office, War
Office, and the French Government, on the subject of administra
tion and policy in these parts of Syria occupied by General
Allenby's forces (Appendix “A”).
Lord Robert Cecil pointed out that the supreme authority of
General Allenby was in no way impaired by the proposed agree
ment, which was purely provisional in character. General
Allenby's telegram No. 1707 (E.C.-1751) was entirely in accord
ance with the views held by the Foreign Office.
General Smuts drew the attention of the Committee to the
danger of allowing it to be thought by the French that this new
provisional agreement in regard to byria, which was based on the
Anglo-French Agreement of 1916 (commonly known as the Sykes-
Picot Agreement) would give similar rights to the French in the
blue area in upper Mesopotamia, notably at Mosul.
General Macdonogh asked whether it was to be understood
that we were still tied by the Anglo-French Agreement of 1916.
The Chairman stated that the Eastern Committee had for a ♦ a
long time been proceeding on the hypothesis that this Angio-
French Agreement of 1916 was out of date and unscientific, and
that it was desirable to get rid of it. The Committee had fre- | 1
quently suggested that the agreement should be revised, but he
feared that the Foreign Office had postponed any settlement of the
question until we were now presented with something like a fait
accompli in Syria. , , . , • + * j u
Sir Mark Sykes stated that he had never been instructed by
the Foreign Office to do away with the agreement, and he had
never broached its revision officially to the French. The French
Government had never moved, and took their stand by the agree-