Papers of the War Cabinet's Eastern Committee [‎139v] (278/544)

effect to Clause TIT of the Provisional Arrangement in regard to the
territory occupied by the Egyptian Expeditionary Force drawn up
at the Conference held at the Foreign Office on the 30th September,
ms.
General Smuts and Mr. Montagu both took exception to the
wording of the proposed declaration in regard to the proviso limiting
the declaration against annexation by the two Governments or in
the event of the inhabitants of the countries desiring annexation by
a third Power. It was felt that these qualifications might be very
ill received by the Arabs, especially at this moment.
Sir Eyre Crowe, on the other hand, stated that he would very
much regret having the hands of the British and French Govern
ments tied by any statement to the effect that we would in no case
annex any part of the areas in question. As an instance of the
inconvenince of being so tied, he quoted the case of Muscat, where
we were bound by an Anglo-French Declaration more than half a
century old against annexation.
Mr. Montagu felt that in addition to the fears which the
declaration as draited might raise in the minds of the Arabs, they
would have a very bad effect upon President Wilson.
General Smuts feared that, unless the wording of the Declaration
was changed it might be possible for the situation to be so
manipulated by future Governments as to bring about annexation.
The Committee decided to adjourn further discussion of the
Draft Declaration to a special meeting of the Committee to be held
at 10‘30 a.m. the following morning.
{The Committee resumed the discussion of the draft Joint Declaration
at 10‘30 a.m. on October 17, 1918.)
Lord Robert Cecil read a new draft in French, which had been
drawn up by Sir Eyre Crowe in consultation with Sir Mark Sykes.
The main difference between the new Draft and that which the
Committee had before them on the previous day lay in the excision
of any negative declaration against annexation by inserting in its
place a positive statement in favour of the establishment of inde
pendent rule.
Sir Eyre Crowe stated that under the new Drafts if Turkey
or Germany tried to impose a protectorate or to annex the areas in
question, our hands would be free to annex or take any steps we
thought fit. In the original Draft we had introduced a definite
statement against annexation in order (l) to quiet the Arabs, and
(2) to prevent the French annexing any part of Syria.
The Chairman expressed the view that there was some substance
in the argument in favour of our safeguarding the position as far as
third parties were concerned. When he was Viceroy of India
trouble had arisen from the action of the French at Muscat, which
was only settled by the despatch of a British warship to that
place.
Mr. Montagu stated that unless the Draft contained a declaration
against annexation in any form, and contained no provisos or con
ditions, he would prefer to have no declaration at all. We did not
wish at this juncture to blazon to the world that we were against
self-determination under certain circumstances.
Sir Mark Sykes drew attention to the words inserted by the
French Government “ proprement arabes.” These words had been
inserted by the French Government instead of the geographical
definitions suggested in Lord Robert Cecil’s original Draft. There
was some fear that the French Government might construe the
words “ proprement arabes ” as not applying to the Lebanon.
The Chairman thought that it would be best to limit the appli
cation of the declaration to Syria.