OIL DISPUTE

Southland Times, Issue 21894, 21 December 1932, Page 7

OIL DISPUTE

BRITAIN AND PERSIA QUESTION REFERRED TO LEAGUE CANCELLED CONCESSION (British Official Wireless.) (Rec. 5.5 p.m.) Rugby, December 19. The dispute between the British and Persian Governments, referred to the League of Nations by the British Government under Article 15 of the Covenant, came before the Council at Geneva to-day. Britain had proposed submitting the dispute to the International Court of Arbitration at The Hague, but as the Persian Government disputed the competence of that tribunal to deal with the case, the British Government, to prevent waste of time, brought it before the League Council.

The British memorandum traces the history of the concession which will not expire until 1961 and which contains no provision for unilateral cancellation. The Persian Government, up to the end of last year, received over £11,000,009 in royalties. The situation earlier this year was that a preliminary agreement for modifying the existing basis on which the royalty was calculated had been reached between the Persian Government and the company and approved by the Persian Council of Ministers, and formal agreement to give it effect, already negotiated and initialled by representatives of the parties, had been for some months under consideration by the Persian Government. Although apparently dissatisfied with the proposed agreement, no alternative proposal to the company had actually been made by the Persian Government. The company would have been perfectly prepared to consider such proposals on receiving them, and if no agreement had been possible any claims by the Government against the company should have been submitted to arbitration in accordance with the terms of the concession. The Persian Government, however, instead of taking such course, sent a communication. to the company announcing its decision to cancel the concession. The company replied disputing the legality of such unilateral action. On being informed of the situation the British Government took up the case in the exercise of its rights to protect British nationals when injured by acts contrai-y to international law committed by another State.

After giving the text of the Notes exchanged, the memorandum says: “The British Government is compelled to take a serious view of the situation created by the Persian Government’s action, which could only be regarded as a unilateral act of confiscation contrary to international law and constituting in this case an international wrong done the United Kingdom in the person of a British company. Moreover, if this action is to be followed by an attempt to take possession of the company’s extensive and immensely valuable properties in Persia, or should any action or inaction by the Persian Government lead to serious injury to the property or personnel of the company, a situation of the utmost gravity would arise. “It is a matter for disquietude that the Persian Government refused to accept responsibility for any loss or damage, although the terms of the concession bound the Persian Government to take the necessary measures for the protection of the property and employees. The British Government continued most .anxious that the difficulties between the Persian Government and the company should be settled by amicable and fair agreement. It emphatically repudiated the allegation that it had done anything to impede such agreement, and in fact took no steps in the matter at all until the Persian Government created the present situation by the illegal step of cancelling the concession. Obviously negotiations could not be fruitfully pursued while the Persian Government claimed to treat the concession as having terminated by its own unilateral act. The British Government will do everything in its power to co-operate with the Council in taking appropriate steps to ensure the maintenance of status and prevent the interests of the company from being prejudiced pending the proceedings before the Council.” Sir William Malkin, in presenting the case to the Council,.said the Government felt that the situation contained elements which required the Council to deal with it as a matter of urgency. He hoped the matter would be ready for consideration at the Council meeting to be held on January 23. CHARGE DENIED. AGREEMENT NOT HINDERED. Geneva, December 19. Reaffirming a desire for an amicable and fair agreement regarding the Anglo-Persian oil dispute, the British Government has submitted a long memorandum to the League of Nations denying the charge that Britain impeded an agreement and contending that there should have been a resort to arbitration under Article 17 of the agreement. “As Persia had already decided to notify the Council of Britain’s intimidation and almost threatening attitude in Persia, we have no objection to the matter being laid before the Council,” states the Persian memorandum presented to the Council. It adds that there is no reason for urgency because Persia does not intend to take measures against the Anglo-Persian Company pending an agreement. Persia has intimated that she cannot immediately present her full case, but nothing will be done to aggravate the situation. The Council is expected to adjourn the matter till January. COMPANY’S INTERESTS NO WARSHIPS DESPATCHED. London, December 19. Sir Bolton Eyres-Monsell (First Lord of the Admiralty) stated that no warships had been sent to Persian waters to protect the Anglo-Persian Oil Company’s interests.