Papers written by Curzon on the Near and Middle East [‎144v] (288/348)

2
typists from Geneva. In so far as vve have to consult the League as regards the Straits
and minorities in the course of our discussions, I would prefer to employ the regular
procedure of a reference to the Council of the League, if necessary summoned to an
ad hoc meeting.
I have carefully considered your Excellency’s suggestion as to a Swiss chairman.
M. Ador, himself, has a reputation for tact and impartiality which are universally
recognised. His presidency The name given to each of the three divisions of the territory of the East India Company, and later the British Raj, on the Indian subcontinent. might further promote a peaceful and unacrimonious
atmosphere and there would be advantages in thus invoking indirectly the assistance
of the Swiss Government for the organisation of tne conference, arranging telegraphic
facilities and perhaps the requisition of hotel accommodation, &c. On the other hand,
I am rather apprehensive as to the dangers of creating so startling a precedent whereby
the representative of a neutral, and a small, Power would be asked to preside over a
conference between belligerents where there has been no question of a reference to the
good offices or arbitration of a third Power. Again, it would in practice be very
difficult for the chairman to confine himself to mere formalities, such as deciding when
and in what order delegates should speak. Almost inevitably he would be called upon
to intervene in controversies between the belligerents, and in questions with which he
would ipso facto not be an courant. On the whole, therefore, 1 would prefer to confine
our invitation to M. Ador oi to any other distinguished Swiss, such as the President of
the Republic, to the formal opening of the conference, and therefore to attendance only at
the first meeting. After that, I would propose to follow my suggestion for a presidency The name given to each of the three divisions of the territory of the East India Company, and later the British Raj, on the Indian subcontinent.
rotating according to the subjects discussed.
On a point of detail, I am not clear as to your argument regarding the rights of the
de jure Government of Georgia. In my view, the principal Allies recognised the de
jure independence of Georgia and not the de jure existence of certain specified persons
composing one particular Georgian Government. At present, His Majesty’s Govern
ment do not recognise either de jure or de facto the present Georgian Soviet
Government but if Georgia were admitted to the discussion on the Straits, His
Majesty’s Government would have to regard the present Soviet Government of Georgia
as the de facto Government for the purposes of admission to that discussion.
I now come to a more important question, that of the status of the Dominions and
India in relation to the forthcoming conference. Your Excellency cannot but be aware
that this question was examined and settled once and for all at the conference in Paris
in 1919. M. Clemenceau readily admitted on that occasion that the independent
contribution of the Dominions and India in waging the war, and particularly the war in
the .Near East, fully entitled them to participation in the conference. Their repre
sentatives therefore had seats on the various sub-commissions of the conference. They
signed the Ireaty of Versailles and other treaties, including the Treaty of Sevres.
They became independent members of the League of Nations. I am not aware that
any such independent status has been claimed or recognised for Tunis and Morocco,
which are protectorates of France, and I regret, therefore, that I cannot admit their
right to be accorded the same status as the Dominions and India Meanwhile, however,
and pending consultation with the latter Governments, I am not sure that they will
desire to participate in the preparation of the new Peace Treaty or the Straits
Convention although they will necessarily have to sign these instruments as they
signed the Treaty of Sevres.
As soon as I learn from your Excellency in reply to this letter that you are
prepared definitely to accept the loth November as the opening date of the conference and
that you agree generally to the procedure which I now propose for dealing with the
Straits question at Lausanne, and the question of the presidenc} 7 , we can concert in
the drafting of joint notes to be issued in the name of the three principal Allied
Governments to Japan, Roumania, Jugoslavia, Greece and Turkey (both the
Constantinople and the Angora Governments) as well as Russia (including the Ukraine
and Georgia) and Bulgaria as also to the Swiss Government regarding the seat of the
conference and its formal opening by a Swiss president. 1 will, in the meantime,
prepare such draft notes which I shall be happy to submit to your Excellency for
examination and approval in collaboration with Lord Hardinge and Count Sforza. I
have to-day explained to the Italian Ambassador in London the main features of the
above proposals, lor communication to his Government so that they will be fully aware
of the lines upon which we are proceeding.
Believe me, Ac.
CURZON OF KEDLESTON.