OIL IR PERSIA

Manawatu Standard, Volume LIII, Issue 21, 21 December 1932, Page 7

OIL IR PERSIA

CANCELLATION OF CONCESSION. DISPUTE BEFORE LEAGUE. HUGE SUM PAID IN ROYALTIES.

(United Press Association—By Electric T elegraph.—Copyrigh t.) (British Official Wireless.) RUGBY, Dec. 19. The dispute between the British and Persian Governments, referred to the League of Nations by the British Goa - - ernment under Article 15 of the Covenant, came before the Council at Oreneya to-day. Britain had proposed submitting tho dispute, Avhich arises out of the Persian GoA’ernment’s action in announcing the cancellation of tile Anglo-Persian Oil Company’s concession, to the International Court of Arbitration at The Ha.gue, but as the Persian Government disputed the competence of tribunal to deal with the case the British Government to preA-ent AA-aste of time brought it before the League Council.

A memorandum on the dispute presented by Britain traces the history of the concession, Avhich does not expire until 1961 and Avhich contains no provision for unilateral cancellation. The Persian Government up to the end of last year had receiv-ecl over £11,000,000 in royalties, it Avas stated. The situation earlier this year Avas that a preliminary agreement for modifying the existing basis on Avhich the royalty was calculated had been reached betAveen the Persian Government and the oompany and had been approA’ed by the Persian Council of Ministers. A formal agreement to give it effect, already negotiated and initialled by representatives of the parties, had been for some months under consideration of the Persian GoA-ernment.

Although apparently dissatisfied Avith the proposed agreement, no alternative proposals to the company had actually been made by the Persian GoA-ernment. The company Avould have been perfectly prepared to consider such proposals on receiving them, and if no agreement had been possible any claims by the GoA’ernment against the company should have been submitted to arbitration in accordance Avith terms of tho concession. The Persian Government, hoAvever, instead of talcing 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.

PROTECTION OF BRITISH NATIONALS.

On being informed of the situation the' British GoA-ernment took up the case in exercise of its rights to protect British nationals Avlien injured by acts contrary to international latv committed by another State. After giving the text of Notes exchanged, the memorandum says that the British Government Avas compelled to take a serious vieAV of the situation created by the Persian Government’s action, Avhich could only be regarded as a unilateral act of confiscation contrary to international laAv and constituting in this case an . international Avrong done to the United Kingdom in the person of the British company.' Moreover, if this action were 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 GoA’ernment had refused to accept responsibility for any loss or damage, although the terms of the concession bound the Persian Government to take necessary measures for protection of the property and employees. The British Government continued to be most anxious that the difficulties between the Persian GoA’ernment 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.

AMICABLE SETTLEMENT DESIRED. 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. The British Government was most anxious that the dispute should not disturb its hitherto friendly relations with the Persian Government and would do everything in its power to co-operate with the Council in obtaining an amicable and equitable settlement. Ifc urged upon the Council the necessity of taking appropriate steps to ensure maintenance of the status quo and to prevent the interests of the company from being prejudiced pending proceedings before the Council. Sir William Malkin, legal adviser to the Foreign Office, in presenting the case to the Council in the absence ot Sir John Simon, said his Government felt that the situation contained elements which required the Council to deal with it as a matter of urgency. The Persian Government' was entitled to a reasonable period for the presentation of its case, but he hoped that the matter would be ready for consideration at the Council meeting to be held on January 23.