ملف ٤٧٢٢\١٩١٨ الجزء ٨ "بلاد الرافدين: الوضع" [و‎‎٢‎٢‎٥] (٩٩٥/٤٦٠)

Telegram—P. Priority.
Prom—Foreign and Political Department, Simla.
—Secretary of State for India, London, repeated to Civil Commissioner,
• Baghdad.
^o. 862-S.
Dated 14th. received 15tli July, 1920.
Your telegram 29th March, 1917, item 9. We wish to lay before you
our reconsidered views on this question before details of Mesopotamia Adminis
tration are finally settled. It was proposed in 1917 to transfer control of
Arabia littoral control of Basrah (not Baghdad) and proposal was based on the
assumption that Basrah was to remain permanently under British administra
tion and that Baghdad was to be an Arab State. H. M. Government have now
changed their policy and the intention is to facilitate development of Mesopo
tamia (including it is assumed Basrah Wilayat) as a self-governing State able
to stand by itself. It follows that in course of time say in 30 years, British
Political Administrators having disappeared from Mesopotamia, there will be
no British Officials of fitting status to direct authoritatively our Political rela
tions with Arab State. Question of transfering Political control of -Arabia
littoral from the Government of India should we think be re-considered in
(the) light of these changed circumstances and particularly in the case of
Oman and Bahrain which politically and commercially are intimately con
nected with India, towards which they look for everything while they have
little dr no dealings with Mesopotamia. Despatch follows giving our views in
greater detail.
Addressed to Secretary of State and repeated to Baghdad.
Telegram.
From—Civil Commissioner, Baghdad.
To—India Office, repeated, Simla.
2to. 8567.
Dated 16th July, 1920.
Government of India telegram of 14th July, 862S. See my telegram of
December 2nd, 14443.
As far as maintenance of Persian Gulf Residency as separate unit apart
from Mesopotamia Administration is concerned my provisional views for last
few months have had a somewhat similar trend, vide my telegram of 21st April,
4881, regarding Bahrain, and my telegram of 13th June, 7143 (neither of them
repeated to you) recommending separation of post of Political Resident in
Persian Gulf from that of Civil Commissioner, Baghdad.
But arguments of Government of India in favour of separation from
Mesopotamia Administration seem not entirely inapplicable to Government
of India itself, and it may be necessary before long to transfer political control
on both sides of the Gulf to His Majesty’s Government, in which case their
representative at Baghdad might well exercise general political control ovefr
the whole area between Syria and the Indian front'er, vide my telegram of
February 7th, 1919, 1659.
Recent proposals of military authorities in India to transf er responsibility
for garrisons in Persian Gulf to Imperial Governments lend point to this view.
Addressed India Office, repeated, Simla.
Telegram—P.
From—H.M.’s Secretary of State for India, London.
To—Civil Commissioner, Baghdad, repeated to Aiceroy.
Ho. P. 5598.
Dated 20th and received 22nd July, 1920.
Lord Curzon has replied as follows to Allenby’s telegrams reporting
requests bv Faisal for the intervention of H.M.’s Government between French
Government and himself. Begins (July i6th) I am afraid that it is im
possible to adopt course proposed for interfering. Since grant of Mandate for
Syria to French at San Remo, they have possessed a prior right with reference
to purely internal Syrian affairs which it would be neither right nor expedient
for us to contest.
Anv neglect on our part to bear this in mind would produce greatest
possible irritation here and would merely result in old game of one party being
played against the other out there.
Frtncli disinterest themselves altogether from Palestine and Mesopotamia,
emplovino- some argument as regards our position in those countries. _ If their
present attitude to Faisal lands them in future trouble the responsibility will
be exclusively theirs. Ends.
Addressed Baghdad, repeated Viceroy.