Papers of the War Cabinet's Eastern Committee [‎140r] (279/544)

9
Lord Robert Cecil said that this would be impossible, and that
unless we made a self-denying declaration in regard to Mesopotamia
the French would not make a similar declaration in regard to Syria.
General Macdonogh urged that extreme care should be taken in
regard to the geographical names selected, should geographical
definition be decided upon. The important question was to secure a
definition which would be understood by the Arabs. Syria was a
somewhat loose geographical expression. According to some, Syria
included Palestine; while according to others, Syria was confined to
the Turkish vilayet of that name, which wonld exclude the vilayets
ol Aleppo and Beirut, and also the Lebanon. Galilee and Samaria,
which were parts of Palestine, were in the vilayet of Beirut.
Sir Mark Sykes stated that the proper Arabic nnmes of the
various provinces might he found in Mr. Guy 1’Estrange’s book
entitled “ The Provinces of the Abbasid Caliphate.”
Lord Robert Cecil thought that the best way would be to define
the areas by means of a map. This, however, would not easily be
utilised for fulfilling the main object of the declaration, which was
generally to reassure the Arabs.
General Smuts stated that he did not think the amended Draft
would prove altogether satisfactory to the Arabs, as the Draft spoke
of the British and French Governments establishing local native
administration. Our duty was to make it clear to the Arabs that
the initiative lay wfith them and not with us, and that they were
free to set up whatever form of Government they chose.
The Chairman thought that the opening sentence of the decla
ration made it perfectly clear that this was our intention, and that
our object was to ensure that effective native Governments should be
established by the free choice of the people themselves.
In regard to the question of geographical definition, he thougt
that the words “ toutes les regions lib^rees de la domination turque
en Syrie et en Mesopotamie” might he substituted for the words
“ proprement arabes.”
General MacDonogh stated that any mention of annexation or
protection was dangerous, and that King Hussein was very nervous
lest he be accused by the Arabs of bartering their birthright and
placing Mohammedans who had hitherto been under Mohammedan
rule under Christian rule.
The Chairman stated that the important thing was to put Arab
independence in the forefront of the declaration, and to bring in any
reference to the French and British Governments later,
Sir Eyre Crowe suggested the insertion of the word “ appui ”
instead of the word “ protection ” in the French Draft. This was
agreed to by the Committee.
After further discussion the Committee decided—
To recommend the deletion of the sentence containing the
provisos regarding annexation in certain contingencies
as likely to arouse suspicion, and requested the Foreign
Office to prepare another Draft in the light of the above
discussion, emphasizing the Arab rights and claims, which
should be submitted to the French Government for their
concurrence after approval by the Chairman on behalf of
the Committee.
Future
Government of
the Middle East.
Proposed British
Mission to Syria.
[365—34]
(6.) With reference to Minute 2 of the Thirty-fourth Meeting,
the Committee took note of a letter from Lord R. Cecil to M. Pichon,
covering a draft Memorandum on the subject of the future govern
ment of the Middle East. (E.C.-1915) (Appendix (B).)
(c.) The Committee had before them a Note by the Assistant
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, covering a Memorandum by
Sir Mark Sykes, suggesting the despatch of a British Mission to
Syria. (E.C.-1943) (Appendix (C).)
D