Papers on British policy and the Arab movement [‎164v] (332/380)

r
4
“ It might also be urged that, by allowing the Idrisi, under article 3, to extend
his territories, and, at the same time, under article 5, guaranteeing his independence
hereafter, we may be bringing ourselves into an embarrassing position vis-a-vis
other Arab chiefs, but our position in this matter is safeguarded by the condition
that the extension of the Idrisi’s territories should be at the expense of the Turks,
and, should he hereafter involve himself in a collision with other Arab chiefs by an
aggressive policy, we could point to this condition, and disavow his action.
“ Further, it might have been desirable to insert a clause giving British and
British Indian traders free access to the Idrisi’s ports, but this might legitimately
be held to be a corollary of the pact of friendship which it is the object of the
treaty to consolidate.
“ As any further assistance in funds or munitions to the Idrisi is explicitly to
be in accordance with the measure of the Idrisi’s activities, our responsibilities in
this matter would appear to be sufficiently safeguarded.
“We think, therefore, that, although the treaty as drafted is epen to objection
on the ground that it is neither very clear nor very concise, it will, if the small
amendment suggested (in the first paragraph quoted) above be effected, adequately
meet the requirements of the situation. We would ask, therefore, for authority to
ratify it as it stands, subject to this qualification. To return it for extensive
revision to our Political Resident A senior ranking political representative (equivalent to a Consul General) from the diplomatic corps of the Government of India or one of its subordinate provincial governments, in charge of a Political Residency. would be to endanger the ultimate success of the
negotiations, and would, at any rate, involve undesirable delay. If your Lordship
agrees, we should be glad of orders by telegraph.’’
In answer to this, the India Office The department of the British Government to which the Government of India reported between 1858 and 1947. The successor to the Court of Directors. , with the concurrence of the Foreign Office,*
telegraphed to the Viceroy as follows on the 21st June, 1915 :—t
“ His Majesty’s Government approve treaty with substitution of words
‘ Western Arabia.’ We prefer this not so much because of Mesopotamia as because
of Sheikh Saiyid, which it may be necessary to annex after war, and which we
regard as Southern rather than Western Arabia. This possibility should be borne
in mind in any language used to Arabs.”
And these instructions were transmitted by the Government of India to the
Resident at Aden in a telegram dated the 24th June, 1915.^ Copies of the treaty,
which had been forwarded from Aden to Simla on the 1st May, 1915, were now sent
back on the 28th June, 1915, for this alteration to be made ; but on the 20tli July, 1915,
the Resident reported that it was not possible at that stage to get hold of the
signatories.
On the 23rd August, 1915, the Resident reported § further that, in the Arabic
text of the treaty, the counterpart to the English words “ Arabian soil” (Art. 6) was
“ the Yemen.’’
“ It was explained to Saiyid Mustafa, the signatory of the treaty, who is
now here, that the word ‘ Yemen ’ was not an adequate translation of the amended
English, but he did not approve of any alteration. He remarked that, were the
British Government to annex Sheikh Said, Mokha or Hodeida, his master would be
only too pleased, as he indeed was at our occupation of Kamaran.
“ In these circumstances, it is not considered politic to amend the Arabic
reading. The English wording is of course authoritative.
“ It does not seem therefore necessary to re-write the treaty, for such a
course would create suspicion in the Arab mind.”
In view of this despatch the Viceroy telegraphed as follows to the India Office The department of the British Government to which the Government of India reported between 1858 and 1947. The successor to the Court of Directors. on
the 5th October, 1915 :— j|
“ We do not consider use of term Yemen in the Arab text open to serious
objection. Should we desire to take over Sheikh Said, our action would be
justifiable, in view T of Arab and Turkish acts of aggression, under a broad interpreta
tion of clause 6 of the proposed treaty. We therefore suggest immediate ratification.”
And this was approved by the India Office The department of the British Government to which the Government of India reported between 1858 and 1947. The successor to the Court of Directors. , with the concurrence of the Foreign
Office,^} on the 23rd October, 1915.**
The Treaty was accordingly ratified by the Viceroy in Council on the Gth November
1915,tt with the substitution of the words “Western Arabia” for “Arabian soil” in
the English text, but with no alteration in the Arabic.
* 7y794/15.
H 145027/15.
t 83129/15.
If 152356/15.
t 126147/15. § 152356/15.
** 168899/15. ft 193583/15.