PERSIA’S ACTION

Taranaki Daily News, 21 December 1932, Page 7

PERSIA’S ACTION

CANCELLED CONCESSION

BRITAIN PRESENTS ITS CASE

UNILATERAL CONFISCATION

LEAGUE ASKED TO DECIDE

APPEAL TO BOTH PARTIES

British Official Wireless. Rec. 5.5 p.m. Rugby, Dec. 19. The dispute between the British ana Persian Governments over the oil concession to a British company, which had been 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 does not expire until 1961, and which contains no provision for unilateral cancellation. The Persian Government up to the end of last year received over £11,000,000 in royalty. The situation earlier this year was that a preliminary agreement for _modifying the existing basis on which the royalty was calculated had been reachad between the Persian Government and Anglo-Persian Company and approved by the Persian Council of Ministers, and a 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 Persia was 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.

GOVERNMENT. INTERVENES. The Persian Government insteadof taking such a 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 contrary to international law committed by another State. ■ After -giving the text of the Notes exchanged the memorandum says the British Government was 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 aone the United Kingdom in the person of the British company, Moreover, if this action was 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 was a matter for disquietude that the Persian Government had 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 or the employees. The British Government was most anxious that the difficulties between the Persian Government and the company should be settled by an amicable and fair agreement. It emphatically repudiated the allegation that it had done anything to impede such an agreement, and in fact it 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 been terminated by its own unilateral act.

DESIRE TO CO-OPERATE. The British Government would do everything in its power to co-operate with the Council of the League in taking the appropriate steps to ensure the maintenance of the status and prevent the interests of the company being prejudiced pending the proceedings before the council. Sir William Malkin in presenting the case to the' Council, said the Government felt 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. Mr. Sean Lester, presiding in the absence of Mr. de Valera, telegraphed the British and Persian Governments declaring his confidence that both would refrain from aggravating the dispute pending its settlement. “As Persia had already decided to notify the Council of Britain’s intimidation and almost threatening attitude in Persia we have ho objection to the matter being laid before the League Council,” states the Persian memorandum presented to the council. It adds: "There is no reason for urgency, because Persia does not intend to take measures against the Anglo-Persian Company pending an agreement.” Speaking in the House of Commons, Sir B. M. 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, says a London cable.