OIL DISPUTE

Hokitika Guardian, 10 December 1932, Page 5

OIL DISPUTE

BRITISH CONCERN

PERSIAN REPLY CONSIDERED.

(British Official W' r eless.)

RUGBY, December 9. In the House of Commons, Captain Eden (Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs) said that the Persian Government’s reply to the British note as to the Anglo Persian Oil Company’s concession, wan dated 3rd of December. The reply maintained that the Persian Government was within its rights in cancelling the concession. The Peisi-an Government failed to .agree to withdraw its notification, of the cancellation. It has not refused to hold direct discussions with the Oil Company with the view of negotiating a new concession, and it declared that the Persian Government does not regard itself as responsible for any damage accruing to the Anglo-Persian Oil C'omany.' Captain Eden said the British Government regarded Persia’s reply as being wholly unsatisfactory, and therefore the British Minister at Teheran had delivered a further Note, the text of which was also read to the House. The note stated that the British Government were unable to admit the validity of a unilateral cancellation of the old concession, Such cancellation was a confiscatory measure, and was a clear breach of international law committed against the British Company. The British Government felt obliged to take the matter up in the exercise of rights to protect the interests of their nationals- From the outset the British Government had been anxious for an amicable settlement to be reached between the Persian Government and the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, but the British Government could not regard the Persian Government’s reply as offering a satisfactory basis for such a settlement. 1

The British note proceeded. “Should the Persian Government be unwilling to withdraw their notification ■of the •cancellation of the concession within one week from the date of the present note namely Thursday, 15th of December, His Majesty’s Government httve no alternative to* referring the dispute which has arisen between them and the Persian Government in regard to the legality of the Persian Government’s ■action, to tile Permanent Court ot Inei'ntational Justice at The Hague, as a matter of urgency, under the Optional Clause. In so doing, His, Majesty’s Government would request the Court to indicate, under Article 41 of the Statute, provisiiial measures which ought to be taken to preserve their rights. 1 ’ Mr Lansbury, following Captain F.den asked did the Inst sentence in the British note menu that in certain circumstances the Government proposed to take armed .measures against Persia.

Captain Eden: The statement .is clear. 'We hold the Persian Government responsible for the protection of the company’s interests. Mr Lansbury: Does it mean that in certain circumstances while the matter is- being arbitrated, the Government might feel compelled to take other measures.

Captain ■ Eden : My statement is necessarily hypothetical. The Government can only be guided by circumstances, as these arise. Mr Lansbury appealed to Mr Baldwin to undertake t 0 inform the House before measures other than arbitration were taken. MU Baldwin said it was impossible to enter into hypothetical questions. Captain Eden informed Mr Peter MacDonald that the Persian Government was under direct treaty to protect the Company’s interests. ( Mr Lansbury, later, stating he was dissatisfied with the Ministerial statements, sought to move the adjournment on the subject, as several newspapers suggested that Russia "as behind Persia’s intransigeance. There was loud ironical laughter when Mr Lansbury, reading his motion referred to the Anglo-Perskn as the Anglo-Russian oil company. Sir H. Davidson: You have let the cat out of the bag now! (Laughter.)

The Speaker l rejected Mr Lansbury s motion on the ground that he did not draw attention to “definite matter. Mr Lansbury: But in the event of some damages to the Company’s property, the Government’s statement would permit it to take action which might lend to war. The Speaker maintained his ruling and said that Air Lansbury was suggesting a purely hypothetical situation.

CANCELLATION RIGHT DENIED.

IN BRITISH NOTE TO PERSIA. LONDON, December 9. An important statement was made in the House of Commons by the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Capt. Eden, in reference to the strong representation which the Government has made to the Persian Government itt"ruin" their action in cancelling the Anglo Persian OiJ Coy’s concession over , ludf a million acres. Captain Eden read tlm text of n note that had I-,-"., handed to the Persian Foreign Minister on Dmo-'O'-'V 2nd b” the IMtish Ministi ;• at Teheran. This note described the Peirs an Government’s a-tion as an ndmissablo breach of terms. Tt took a most serious view oi the Persian Government’s conduct. It demanded an immediate withdrawal ol

the notification issued that the Persian Government have issued to the Oil Company. The hope was expressed that the Persian Government would be nt pains to reach an amicable settlement, in direct negotiations, with the company; but stated that the British -Government would not bcsitit", if :v necessity arose to take all legitimate measures te protect its just and indisputable interestsThe note, iie said, added: The British Government will not tolerate any damage to the Oil Company’s interest, or any interference with their premises or their business interests in Persia,