PERSIAN OIL DISPUTE

Press, Volume LXXXIX, Issue 27074, 24 June 1953, Page 3

PERSIAN OIL DISPUTE

“FINAL RESULT WAS INEVITABLE ”

ADDRESS BY MR A. HUGH SIMPSON

Whatever might have been done, the final result of the Persian oil dispute was inevitable; although a show of strength by the British forces would have been of som? face-saving value, said Mr A. Hugh Simpson, formerly an engineer with the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and now senior lecturer in civil engineering at Canterbury University College, in an address to the Christchurch U.S.A. Tin Hat Club last evening. “The present situation was caused not by any shortcomings of the company in Iran, but by a surge of nationalism in the area,” he said. Throughout Egypt, Afghanistan, Jordan, and India, this / uprising of national feeling had been felt, and the Persian dispute was just a part of it. “Feelings were brought to a head by a rather fanatical group of people who had behind them fanatical religious leaders,” Mr Simpson said. “Until the beginning of this century, the religious leaders of Persia ruled the everyday life and every action of their followers. With the coming of the oil company the Persians were quick to break away from them, and then later with the surge of nationalism, the religious leaders were just as quick to regain their power. It was very easy to find a scapegoat in the British, to say that the company was bleeding the Persians white, and so to push the company odt. ahe Persians are opportunists—and that applies to their Prime Minister and others of his breed,” he said. ‘‘They like to bargain, and that is what they aimed to do with Britain over the oil.

“I have no one explanation for the situation. At the time, the British in Persia were pretty hot under the collar and thought that the British Government should have been stronger, but I do not think there could have been any other ending. We were ejected, and our prestige was right down in the mud. During the exodus, British support . seemed very far away. I think a little show of strength might have helped. It would, however, have been a mistake to have tried to stay in Persia protected by an .army,” Mr Simpson said*

Hospitality of Villagers The better educated Persians were, the greater was their tendency to exhibit an inferiority complex about their country, Mt* Simpson said. Government officials would try to stop European visitors from photographing or even seeing villagers without shoes or hats, or living in mud huts. The villagefrs themselves, once the initial suspicion of foreigners had been overcome, were very friendly and were much more hospitable than Europeans. During a trip into one of the lessdevelopd areas of Persia he had been stopped by an old farmer and invited, to the farmhouse for a meal, Mr Simpson said. The farmer’s wife was with difficulty restrained from slaughtering and cooking the farm’s only sheep, but insisted in serving six of the flock of 10 chickens for her visitors. Mr. Simpson said Teheran was. as it

bad been for centuries, a hot-bed of intrigue. “There is a so-called Government run by a lot of fanatics, but it does not practise very much outside the capital. The central Parliament appoints governors for each province. These men are really military dictators, and although no salary goes with the appointment, each governor is usually able to retire after two years in office and build a beautiful home in Teheran. “The government of the country is run on a system of baksheesh or appeasement. If you wantL something, you pay what the • official concerned demands—even though it may be 10 times the official figure,” Mr Simpson said.