Papers of the War Cabinet's Eastern Committee [‎242r] (483/544)

5
as the reasons for which she desires the assistance of the Conference assembled at Paris.
We have been told by her Government that she wants to press for the abrogation
of all the conventions that may be considered prejudicial to her independence and
integrity; and, in so far us the Anglo-Russian agreement of 1907 is concerned, we
have shown our willingness to meet her. She then desires to raise the question of
compensation for damages caused to her, ignoring the much greater expense and losses
that have been inflicted upon others, including ourselves. She wishes to plead for
economic liberty, whatever that may mean, for the right to make commercial treaties
and to set up a new customs tariff. Finally, she wishes to press for the abolition of
the capitulations, or rather of those clauses in the various treaties with her which are
called capitulations in the case of other countries.
It is clear that the majority of these matters have nothing to do with the Peace
Conference at all. The Peace Conference is to settle the issues that have arisen
between States of the world who have been at war, and I hope that we shall adhere
strongly to the position that it is no part of the Peace Conference to take up the
grievances and complaints of other States who may have been affected by the war,
although thev have not been directly in it, and who want either to readjust their
boundaries, or to make more favourable conditions for themselves in the future. That
attitude has been taken up consistently, and I venture to think quite rightly, by the
Foreign Office. Only five minutes before I came down here I saw that it has been
strongly supported by the French Government, or rather it is the attitude which they
have "taken up on their own account. Here is a note, handed in by M. Gambon, and
representing the views of M. Pichon, in which he indicates that in the view of the
French Government Persia has no more right to be represented at the Conference than
other neutral States; she is at liberty to address to the Allies memoranda if she deems
it necessary, but she is not to be allowed to interfere in the discussions in any way.
The Fren h Government desire to know if the views of the British Government are in
accord with those which have been thus expressed. Ti«e following reply was addressed
only two days ago by Mr. Balfour to M. Gambon : “The Secretary ot State for Foreign
Affairs presents his compliments to the French Ambassador, and in reply to his
Excellency’s notes of the 11th and 12th December regarding the desire of the Persian
Government to send a representative to the Peace Conference to be held in Paris, has
the honour to inform M. Gambon that in the course of last month he instructed
Sir P. Cox to inform the Persian Minister for Foreign Affairs that the Peace Congress
itself would alone be able to decide authoritatively the question whether and in what
manner non-belligerent Governments should be formally represented at the Congress.
Sir P. Cox was further authorised to state that His Majesty’s Government would
welcome the presence in Paris, the seat of the Conference, of a representative of the
Persian Government with whom it would be possible for His Majesty’s Government to
discuss anv questions which might come up at the Conference in connection with Persia,
and also to repeat a promise previously given that His Majesty’s Government would, in
so far as it might lie in their power, certainly advocate participation of Pers.a at the
Conference if it were eventually decided to admit Powers other than those which had
been actual belligerents.” That is a concise summary of the attitude which I have
described, and, with regard to Peisian appearance at the Peace Conference, it only
remains for me at this stage to allude to the representation upon which the Persian
Government have decided. We were anxious that Vossugh-ud-Dowleh should be
their representative; obviously he would have been the best man for the p<»st; but
the Shah, whether he does not wish him to go to Europe or whether he is anxious to
keep him there, has at any rate refused on the ground that he cannot be spared, and
we understand that the two Persian representatives will be the Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Mashaver-ul-Mamalek, and another official who I understand is the brother of
the Persian Minister in London.
LORD'EGBERT CECIL: That is so.
LORD CUEZON: I believe that neither of them is a candidate whom we should
have cho-en and that we cannot rely too implicitly upon the attitude which they are
likely to take. I shall have a word or two more to say about the Persian representa
tives and their probable policy in a few moments’ time. W hat I have said so
far is really in the nature of a preface to the discussion of what our policy now
ought to be.
I gave expression at the beginning to the extreme reluctance with w’hich every one
of us has found himself embarked on these proceedings, military, diplomatic, and other
wise, in Persia during the war. The natural inclination of anyone who hears those views
[S65—44] C