PERSIAN OIL DISPUTE

Press, Volume LXXXVIII, Issue 26855, 7 October 1952, Page 7

PERSIAN OIL DISPUTE

British And U.S. Attitude

(N.Z. Press Association— Copyright) (Rec. 8 p.m.) WASHINGTON, October 5. The Unitetl States Secretary of State (Mr Acheson I today told the Persian Prime Minister (Dr. Mmaadlq) that Persia had misunderstood the Joint American and British proposals for the settlement of the oil dloputa. Mr Acheson offered some additional explanation in a Note replying to the one in which Dr. Mussadiq had rejected proposals by Mr Truman and Mr Churchill. The proposals included a United States offer of 10,000,000 dollars in cash, the lifting of the British embargo on 2,000,000 tons of oil stored in Persia since nationalisation, and the judgment of compensation claims by the International Court of Justice. • Mr Acheson’s Note, made public in Washington today, said it was the American belief that the joint proposal of August 30 met all Persia's demands. Mr Acheson wrote: “It has been our understanding that the Persian Government’s position was that negotiation for the settlement of the oil dispute must take into account the fact of nationalisation, the complete independence of Persia in the operation of its oil industry, and the freedom of Persia to sell its oil on other than a monopoly basis. "It wag and Is our sincere belief that the proposals which were put forward on August 30 met these points. "The proposals clearly recognised the fact of nationalisation. Foreign management of the industry was not nut forward as a, condition, or even suggested. There 1 was no intent to propose a monopoly on the purchase pf Persian oil. “Regardless of the acceptability of the proposals of August 30, it is a matter of regret to us that their meaning should have been misunderstood.’’ Text of British Message

Britain has also told Dr. Mussadiq that she is disappointed to see that the proposals for a settlement have been misunderstood in so many ways. Dr. Mussadiq was also informed that the fears he expressed about future British action in Persia if an oil settlement were reached on the, bpsis of these proposals were “without foundation.” This was part of the text of the British reply made a few hours after the deadline set for acceptance on Dr. Mussadiq’s counter-proposals. “TMte proposals suggested an equitable method, not necessarily the only method, of settling all the claims and counter-claims of both sides bv impartial adjudication. We said nothing about the price of oil. because that falls to be discussed be-? tween the seller apd the purchaser and not between Governments,” said the British message. The Persian MajHs will reassemble on Tuesday when Dr. Mussadiq may consult the Deputies before taking a final decision on whether to break off relations with Britain. Diplomatip quarters in London said that Britain’s reply had three main objects. They were:

That Britain stood by the joint proposals of August 30, at the same time making it clear that they were not a final ultimatum. To drive home the fact that in the Truman-Churchill proposals Britain made major concessions to the Persian Government, including the virtual abandonment pf her £500,000,000 oil industry in Persia. To make a simple appeal to Dr. Mussadiq to realise that these proposals did not mean the resurrection of the AngloIranian Oil Company in Persia, bqt recognised tne fact of the nationalisation of the Persian oil industry.

The reply did not contain a formal rejection of Dr- Mussadiq’s proposals, though it has been plainly understood in London that on at least one point—the Persian demand for £49,000,000 —they were unacceptable.