The Peace of Amiens

by Nicholas Sumner

  South West Africa

  South African Mandate 1919

  South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands

  Crown Colony

  Sudan

  Crown Colony

  Tanganyika

  British Mandate 1919

  Togo

  British Mandate 1919

  Tonga

  British Protectorate 1900

  Trinidad and Tobago

  Crown Colony

  Tristan Da Cunha

  Crown Colony

  Trucial Oman

  British Protectorate 1887

  Uganda

  Crown Colony

  Zanzibar

  British Protectorate 1890

  *Including Graham Land, the South Shetland Islands and the South Orkney Islands.

  The Mosley Report’s General Conclusions

  The British Empire, with the exception of very few of its territories, was a strategic and economic liability.

  The terms of British military protection of the Empire should be renegotiated.

  The profitability of the colonies of the empire should be maximised. Colonies that were, or could be made profitable should be discouraged from seeking independence.

  Parliament in Westminster should exercise more political leverage with the protectorates and encourage the ones that were, or could be made profitable to become Crown Colonies.

  Territories with no hope of becoming profitable should be given independence within the Commonwealth as quickly as possible or have the terms of their dependence upon Britain for protection formalised and clarified as soon as was practicable and safe.

  The report recommended a clear distinction between being a member of the Commonwealth and being a British Dominion. Being a British Dominion implied an obligation; that together with the United Kingdom and the other Dominions that all territories with Dominion status would co-operate on matters of foreign policy and defence. Furthermore, that the United Kingdom and countries with Dominion status would come to the defence of one another if any of them were threatened by an outside power. A Dominion would be a member of the Commonwealth, but membership of the Commonwealth did not imply that a country was a Dominion.

  ​The report suggested that a Dominion should be defined as an independent country formally allied with the United Kingdom with regards to foreign and defence policy, while a member of the Commonwealth would be a Territory related to Britain without either polity having any specific obligations one to another. It further suggested that a Crown Colony should be defined as a Territory dependent on the United Kingdom for its government, foreign policy and defence.

  Summary of Recommendations – Region by Region

  NORTH AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN

  Theses territories were; Antigua and Barbuda, The Bahamas, Barbados, Bermuda, British Honduras, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Montserrat, Newfoundland, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and lastly Trinidad and Tobago, all of which were Crown Colonies. It was recommended that all proceed immediately to full independence within the Commonwealth except Newfoundland which should either be granted Dominion status or encouraged to join the Canadian Federation.

  SOUTHERN ASIA

  These consisted of; Burma, Ceylon, The Chagos Archipelago (The British Indian Ocean Territory), The Maldives and Nepal. It was recommended that with the exception of Burma, all proceed immediately to full independence within the Commonwealth but that the bases at Diego Garcia (in the Chagos Archipelago) and Trincomalee (in Ceylon) be retained.

  Burma was wealthy and potentially very profitable. It was the world’s largest exporter of rice, produced 75% of the world’s teak, had large reserves of oil and a wealth of natural and labour resources including a highly literate population. It was recommended that Burma be retained as a Crown Colony.

  SOUTH EAST ASIA

  These were; Brunei, Hong Kong, Malaya, Sabah (North Borneo) and Sarawak. Malaya was the richest of Britain’s colonies. Before the recession of 1930–31 Malaya’s total trade exceeded that of all Britain’s other colonies combined. Even in 1938, during a slump in rubber prices, Malaya’s trade was worth more than that of New Zealand or of all the British colonies in Africa put together. The Protectorates of Brunei and Sarawak also had large reserves of oil and Hong Kong was strategically important. The committee recommended the retention of all five of these territories within the structure of the British Empire, Malaya as a Dominion, the rest as Crown Colonies.

  OCEANIA

  The territories concerned were; The Cook Islands, Fiji, The Gilbert Islands, Nauru, New Guinea, The New Hebrides, Pitcairn Island, Samoa, The Solomon Islands and Tonga. It was recommended that all proceed immediately to full independence within the Commonwealth or alternately become territories of either Australia or New Zealand.

  EAST AFRICA

  These were; Kenya, The Seychelles, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda and Zanzibar. It was recommended that all proceed immediately to full independence within the Commonwealth.

  WEST AFRICA

  The territories concerned were; Cameroon, Gambia, Ghana, Nigeria and Sierra Leone. It was recommended that all proceed immediately to full independence within the Commonwealth.

  SOUTHERN AFRICA

  These were; Bechuanaland (Botswana), Mauritius, Northern Rhodesia, Nyasaland (Malawi) and South West Africa (Namibia). The committee recommended that Bechuanaland and South West Africa be incorporated into the Union of South Africa, while Southern Rhodesia should be amalgamated with Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland to make a single Dominion. Mauritius should proceed immediately to full independence within the Commonwealth.

  THE SOUTH ATLANTIC TERRITORIES

  These were; Ascension Island, The Falkland Islands, St Helena, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and Tristan Da Cunha. These tiny remote Islands were either astride or near shipping routes of strategic importance or too small to be independent. South Africa was asked to accept a transfer of the sovereignty of Tristan Da Cunha but declined. It was recommended that all be retained as Crown Colonies.

  THE MIDDLE EAST AND THE HORN OF AFRICA

  The Iraqi revolt of May 1941, although ill co–ordinated and desultory, [161] was an unpleasant shock to British interests in the Middle East. Members of the Mosley committee travelled to the region several months after the revolt had been put down and it was the Middle East and the prospects of its British territories that took up fully a half of the final report. These were; Aden, Bahrain, Bushire, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and Trucial Oman.

  ​The section on the region opened with some general comments about British dependence on foreign sources of oil and foreign companies for petroleum products. It noted the rise of the aircraft, the oil-fired ship and the motor vehicle and pointed out how essential these were to Britain’s national life, and indeed the life of every developed nation. The report quoted a French Senator, Henri Berenger, who wrote on December 12th 1919 in a letter to Clemenceau;

  “ He who owns the oil will own the world, for he who will rule the sea by means of the heavy oils, the air by means of the Ultra refined oils, and the land by means of petrol and illuminating oils. And in addition to these he will rule his fellow men in an economic sense by reason of the fantastic wealth he will derive from oil – a wonderful substance which is more sought after and more precious today than gold itself.” [162]

  The committee’s recommendations were stark, unequivocal and highly sensitive. Of the territories concerned, only Bushire and Aden were Crown Colonies and the rest were protectorates or mandated territories. However, it recommended the immediate annexation of all of them except the Kingdom of Jordan as Crown Colonies, either because of their proven oil reserves or because of their strategic position. Indeed the committee advocated the acquisition of the entire Trucial coast (the southern shore of the Persian Gulf) except that part of it belonging to Saudi Arabia.

  ​The report also mentioned the loss of British Somalia to Fascist Italy in the war of 1940 (an
issue far beyond its brief) and noted that Italy now controlled one of the jaws of the southern entrance to the Red Sea. It went on to recommend the importance of resolving this problem but coyly made no suggestion as to how.

  THE MEDITERRANEAN LITTORAL

  These were Cyprus, Egypt, Gibraltar, Jordan, Malta and Palestine. The Committee did not recommend any change in the status of Malta or Gibraltar, but advocated for Cyprus either independence within the Commonwealth, or ‘enosis’ (union) with Greece while Britain maintained sovereignty over the bases at Akrotiri and Dhekélia.

  ​The recommendation of complete independence for Egypt, Palestine and Jordan came as no surprise, neither did the proposal to retain the Suez canal zone.

  ​The report also suggested the possibility of transporting oil from the Middle East by pipeline across Iraq, Jordan and Palestine to Jaffa but expressed doubts as to whether such a pipeline would be worth the necessity of hanging on to these fractious and unprofitable states.

  The Post-Mosley Committee Policy – Region by Region

  The debate in Parliament on the Mosley Committee Report was overtaken by the changeover of government in February 1941, though few changes to the policy outlined by the outgoing Labour Administration were embraced. However, the ones that were embraced were very significant indeed. What changes there were, were driven by the need to finance the commitment to the vastly expanded and vastly expensive welfare state that the Liberal/Conservative Coalition inherited from Labour.

  The new Government was able to make much propaganda at the expense of the outgoing Labour Administration, by pointing out that while their social welfare plans at home sharply increased the financial commitments of the British Government, they had not identified a way to cover the bills. The thrust of the new Government’s policy was to broadly continue with the retreat from Empire except where opportunities existed to maintain and or increase the revenues gained from it.

  NORTH AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN

  The Government eventually decided on few changes in the status of Britain’s North American or Caribbean possessions. Due to the proximity of the United States and the latter’s adherence to the Monroe Doctrine there was no pressing requirement to keep more than minimal garrisons in these territories and little need to worry about their defence.

  ​The only exceptions to this were Jamaica, Guyana, British Honduras and Newfoundland. Jamaica was an economic basket case with few prospects for the future. Frequently riven by strikes and uprisings it possessed a nascent parliamentary system and independence within the Commonwealth was to be sought at the earliest feasible date. Guyana and British Honduras had small populations, minimal economic activity and outstanding boundary disputes. Independence within the Commonwealth as soon as possible was the preferred way to proceed.

  ​The committee’s recommendations on Newfoundland were taken as policy by the Government.

  SOUTHERN ASIA

  The recommendations of the committee were followed for all territories except Burma. It was decided to proceed by offering to grant Burma Dominion status. However, it was realised that Burma was a discontented Colony that might very well reject the notion of Dominion status and push for complete independence or even demand the severance or all ties with the Commonwealth. In that situation the country could easily fall into the orbit of Japan. This, obviously, was not regarded by London as a favourable outcome. A secondary protocol was sketched out whereby Burma could be re-occupied by British forces in a crisis, because it was realised that if whatever leadership emerged in Burma were to decide to draw closer to Japan there was very little the British could do to prevent it short of military intervention.

  SOUTH EAST ASIA

  The committee’s recommendations were followed in outline with some important detailed changes. It was decided to continue Hong Kong and Malaya’s status as Crown Colonies until (if and when the time came) these territories produced agitation for independence. No such agitation presently existed so there seemed little need for any alteration in the status quo.

  ​It was decided to amalgamate Sarawak, Brunei and North Borneo into one administrative region to be known as the British North Borneo Territory. Sarawak was the fiefdom of the Brookes family – the White Rajas – and North Borneo was administered by a Chartered British company, both were amenable to British overlordship. Brunei was the fiefdom of Sultan Ahmad Tajuddin who was 30 years old in 1943. The Sultan was quite understandably worried about Japanese expansionism and wished to continue with Brunei as a British protectorate.

  ​The British, however, had decided that they were no longer willing to extend the vastly expensive protection of their armed forces to states from which they gained little or nothing. While they acknowledged that they could not compel the Sultan to allow his tiny country to become a British Crown Colony, if he refused to do so, then all three of North Borneo’s states would be given independence from Britain within the Commonwealth. This was because Brunei was the only one from which significant profits could be expected and the other two were not a bargain without it. The Sultan balked at this, but was immediately subjected to political pressure from both Sarawak and British North Borneo.

  ​In the 19th century, Brunei had lost much of its land area to Sarawak. The White Rajahs had only been restrained from further predation of Brunei’s territory by the direct intervention of the British Foreign Office and Sultan Tajuddin had every reason to be concerned that if the restraining hand of British rule were removed, then the same process would be repeated until his kingdom was entirely consumed.

  ​The British offered the Sultan a deal whereby he would reign but not govern. His accumulated personal wealth would be untouched and he would continue to receive revenue from taxes and trade but the country’s foreign policy, defence and internal administration would be undertaken by Britain through the medium of a colonial government structure, and the lion’s share of the country’s revenues would be retained by the Crown.

  ​Essentially it was much the same deal that was offered to many of the Indian princes in the 18th and 19th centuries as British power expanded into the vacuum left by the collapse of Mogul power and, perhaps in part because of his youth and inexperience, perhaps in part because the life of an international playboy was more attractive to a young man than the dull work of government, like the Indian princes, the Sultan was glad enough to take it.

  OCEANIA, EAST AFRICA AND WEST AFRICA

  Because of the world geopolitical situation, any change in the status or sovereignty of any of the territories covered by the report was deemed to be extremely inadvisable.

  SOUTHERN AFRICA

  The recommendations of the committee were followed for all the territories mentioned except Mauritius. In this case, no change of status or sovereignty was considered advisable because of the world geopolitical situation.

  THE SOUTH ATLANTIC TERRITORIES

  The recommendations of the committee were followed.

  THE MIDDLE EAST AND THE HORN OF AFRICA

  This was the one region where the Coalition government extensively revised the policy of the Labour administration. Labour had taken the view that annexing any of its territories to profit from their oil wealth was immoral and wrong. This stood in stark contrast to Oswald Mosley’s opinions, but Labour had snapped back to a more leftist ‘internationalist’ attitude under Attlee and Dalton. The Coalition’s Foreign Secretary, Anthony Eden, was somewhat more pragmatic – he noted that the only real losers if such a policy were pursued would be the Sheiks, Emirs and Princes who governed them and these were not a particularly savoury group of people, were not at all benevolent and were frankly incompetent as governors. The vast majority of the ordinary citizens of the territories in question would be better off in every way under British rule. Britain’s Prime Minister, Sir Archibald Sinclair, was uncomfortable with this policy in principle but realised that pragmatism in this case, favoured not only British interests but those of the ordinary people of the region. Consequently he was q
uite prepared to leave it to Eden.

  ​It was decided to attempt to bring only the smaller, less populous Persian Gulf states into the Empire as full colonies. These were Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and Trucial Oman. Their total populations in 1940 amounted to roughly 300,000 people. This compared to Britain’s Caribbean possessions whose populations amounted to roughly one million people. Trucial Oman did not at that time have any proven oil reserves but was composed of a number of small emirates with a total population of just 60,000 people and had a large land area that had not been comprehensively surveyed. Oil had been discovered in Kuwait in 1938, Qatar in 1939 and Bahrain in 1932. Of these, only Bahrain had begun to export oil, Kuwait and Qatar were not then earning any revenues from oil.

  ​The British planned to institute a greater degree of democracy including the addition of elected assemblies and functioning judicial systems. The government and administration of British colonies was generally more thorough, less arbitrary and significantly less corrupt than the regimes then in power in the Middle East tended to be. The sovereigns of the region were absolute rulers who governed according to their whims. The concept of government accountability was an alien one and the apportionment of justice both haphazard and liable to be swayed by bribery.

  ​In addition, the British planned the introduction of universal medical and dental care on a level similar to that being undertaken in Britain as well as significant investment in infrastructure. It was felt to be essential that the people of these territories should not be materially worse off than the people of the United Kingdom and it was also planned to grant them British citizenship.

  ​The most important consideration with regards to the status of the region however was the continuance of the British commitment to defend it from hostile powers. Defence from the Axis, a resurgent USSR or the other sometimes predatory states of the region such as Iran, Iraq and even Saudi Arabia was central to the well-being of the Gulf States. That this protection now came at a price surprised no one in the region, though of course there was opposition to the change in the status quo from the more romanticised pundits of Empire in Britain.