Papers on British policy and the Arab movement [‎165r] (333/380)

©
5
T‘
Relation of Commitments to the Idrisi to British Desiderata.
The h>i itish desiderata involved in this treaty with the Idrisi appear to be (a) the
extension of the British “ trucial system to the whole of the Arabian Peninsula, and
(b) the maintenance and improvement of our position at Aden.
I he general policy underlying both these desiderata is expressed in article 6 of the
treaty ; but, as the Government of India remarked in their despatch of the 20th May,
1915, the terms seem to lack precision.
As legaids (a) it is an essential condition in a trucial treaty that the independent
rider who is a party to it shall have no relations with foreign Powers except through
His Majesty s Government, and shall not lease or alienate to them any portion of his
territory. In the present treaty this is nowhere laid down, and 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. , in
their letter of the 17th June, 1915, to the Foreign Office covering the Government of
India s despatch of the 20th May, 1918, justly remarked in this connection (79794/15) :—
“ The matter referred to in paragraph 5 of the despatch (British trade in
Idrisi ports and territory) will, in Mr. Chamberlain’s opinion, be more suitably
dealt with after the war, when some further treaty with the Idrisi will probably
be necessary in any case, e.g., to ensure that he does not cede any port or island
to a foreign Power, and to regulate the arms traffic.”
Again, in the stricter forms of trucial treaty, His Majesty’s Government undertake
to keep the peace between the other party to the treaty and his neighbours possessing
similar treaties with His Majesty’s Government, while the other party undertakes not
to resort to force for the settlement of disputes, but to refer them to His Majesty’s
Government for arbitration.
In the present treaty His Majesty’s Government merely undertake to endeavour,
by diplomatic means, to adjudicate between the claims of the Idrisi and his neighbours.
I his was perhaps the most we could do at the time when the treaty was drafted, since
neither the Sherif of Mecca nor the Imam of Sanaa were at that time in relations with
us. But now that the Sherif has made an alliance with us, and the Imam has
approached us with this object, it becomes important that we should place our relations
with these three rulers as far as possible on an equal footing, and assume a greater
control over their relations with one another.
The difficulties with which we shall be confronted are illustrated by the dispute in
1916 between the Idrisi and the Sherif over the possession of Kunfida (182183/16 and
215155/16 (No. 142) ), in which the Idrisi accepted our award provisionally, but only
subject to reconsideration, under article 5 of our treaty, at the conclusion of the war.
The still more difficult problem of demarcation between the Idrisi and the Imam
was raised by the Resident at Aden in July of the same year (133274/16 and 133783/16),
but this was deprecated by the Viceroy as premature (136686/16).
Whatever settlement of these questions we may succeed in making, fresh
demarcation and allegiance disputes between these three rulers will continually be
arising, and it is submitted that His Majesty’s Government wid not be able to deal
with them effectively unless they conclude a trucial treaty on stricter lines with the
Imam, and supplement their treaty with the Idrisi, and their still more indefinite
arrangements with the Sherif, in this direction.
As regards trade, again, His Majesty’s Government guarantee the Idrisi facilities
at Aden under article 8, while there is no corresponding guarantee for British trade
in the Idrisi’s ports and territory. The Government of India, however, pointed out in
their despatch of the 20th May, 1915, that this may be regarded as implicitly covered
by the “pact of friendship ” laid down in article 1.
Finally, as regards (b) the position of Great Britain at Aden, it may perhaps
be doubted whether the words “Western Arabia” in the English text of article 6,
and “ Yemen ” in the Arabic, do strictly admit of any territorial enlargement
of our Protectorate. And our case on this point is prejudiced by our negotiations with
King Husein. For in his first letter of July 1915 to Sir H. McMahon, Husein, while
he excepted the Aden Protectorate from the boundaries he claimed for Arab
independence, made no reference to rectifications of the Aden frontier; and
Sir H. McMahon, when, in his letter of the 24th October, 1915, he accepted the
proposed boundaries, subject to modifications in Syria, implicitly pledged himself, as
regards Aden, to the status quo.