Papers of the Interdepartmental Conference on Middle Eastern Affairs [‎79v] (158/290)

2
General Cox said that it should not be forgotten that Herat
was only 90 miles from Rui Khal, which was itself only 60 miles to
the east of General Malleson’s line of communications. 1 he
Government of India did not, however, appear to consider that there
was any great danger of an Afghan advance from Herat.
The Chairman said that the original suggestion, that
General Malleson should retire to the west rather than to the south,
came from Sir Percy Cox. He was himself of the opinion that there
was not sufficient reason for the conference to reconsider their
original view that the withdrawal should be towards the railhead,
to which the force was already connected by an established line of
communications. Hie Government of India were of the same
opinion, and the War Office also agreed that the difficulty in
providing transport was the obstacle to Sir Percy Cox’s proposal.
The Conference decided —
To adhere to their opinion that if General Malleson were
compelled to withdraw from Meshed, he should retire in
the direction of the railhead at Duzdap.
Wireless
Telegraphy in
Tibet.
Wireless
Installations.
less powerful, for use in Eastern libet. Ihe object of this proposal
was to prevent the Japanese from acquiring control of telegraphs
and wireless in Tibet. It was known that the Japanese had
concluded an agreement with China, and it was believed that this
agreement gave them general control over Chinese telegraphs and
wireless.
Mr. Max. Midler said that while it was known that agreements
of this nature had been concluded between the Japanese and
Chinese, it had not so far been found possible to ascertain their full
provisions. The Japanese had been approached indirectly in London
and at Peking, but it was not clear whether the concessions granted
to the Mitsui Company were merely a transference of the rights
originally owned by the German-controlled Larsen Company, or
whether they had a wider scope.
Sir Arthur Hirtzel, replying to a question by the Chairman,
said that for the purposes of this proposal Tibet was looked upon as
external to China. There was no intention of actually going behind
the backs of the Chinese Government and concluding an arrangement
which would stultify their agreement with the Japanese. It was
not conceded that the Japanese had any locus standi in Tibet
whatever arrangement they might have concluded in China.
It was true that by the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907 we had
undertaken not to negotiate with the Tibetan Government except
through the Chinese, and also not to seek concessions in Tibet. It
was, however, open to question whether the presentation of two sets
of wireless could be classified as an opening of negotiations or a
seeking of concessions.
The Chairman agreed that this was a nice point. At the same
time he was of opinion that if there was to be any question that the
Anglo-Russian Convention had been set aside by the proposed gift,
it was essential that it should not be made without previous notifica-
2. The Chairman said that there were two questions before the
Conference ; the first was whether wireless installations should be
presented to Tibet by His Majesty’s Government, and the second
was whether it was desirable that there should be a British
representative at Lhasa.
Sir Arthur Hirtzel said the proposal of the Government of India
.was to present the Tibetan Government with two wireless
installations—one powerful set for installation at Lhasa, and another,