"ملف II (F 94) 82/34 امتياز شركة أ.ب.و.ك" [و‎‎٦‎١] (٣٦٢/١٢٦)

15
violated our neutrality. I will mention no names, but almost all
our neighbours fought on our territory. Our neutrality was violated
by the company, and perhaps by the Government of the United
Kingdom; whereupon other belligerents came and organised armed
bands, and it was these who cut the pipe-lines. And we were
expected to pay for it! We cannot do so, since the losses sustained
were due to the war and to acts at variance with Persian neutrality.
According to one expert—and I am happy to have heard the United
Kingdom representative say that he is above suspicion—the losses
caused amounted to £20,000. The company claimed for £600,000.
What did the Persian Government do? It asked the company to
submit the question to arbitration; but the company replied: "No.
We will not allow the principle of your liability to be submitted to
arbitration, but if you are willing to discuss the figures, we will
ask experts to go into the matter." In the company's eyes we were
liable, and it set itself up as both judge and plaintiff.
Mention has been made of two persons holding scholarships.
That is perfectly true, but we are prepared to tell the company that
it can withdraw its benefactions. The Persian Government is now
maintaining over 500 Persian scholarship-holders in France,
Switzerland and Belgium. Nevertheless we must be grateful for
what has been done, and as that has been put forward as an argument,
I tender my thanks.
I am anxious to avoid details as far as possible, and to confine
myself to the substance of the case. I said at the outset, and I
still say, that the substance of the question cannot be discussed
before an international body until it has been proved that there has
been a denial of justice.
We were very glad to hear the United Kingdom representative
say that his country still maintained the principle that the ordinary
remedies should be exhausted before diplomatic protection is
exercised. We take note of that declaration. There is, therefore,
only one point to be elucidated, namely, whether the municipal
remedies were open or closed to the company. We have already
said that they remained open. If need be, that issue could be
elucidated separately.
SIR JOHN SIMON: I shall not detain the Council for more
than a few moments, but I should like, while this discussion is
fresh in our minds, to note one or two points which have been
brought out in the course of the Persian representative's interesting
speech. .Those points are concerned with the juridical basis of
the British claim, with one exception with which I will deal first
and which is purely a matter of fact.
I can assure the Persian representative that, wherever he got
his figures from—and I do not think it can have been from his
accountants—the statement that His Majesty's Government have
drawn M0 million from the Anglo-Persian Oil Company is a
grotesque exaggeration. I would further point out that His
Majesty's Government differ in this respect from the Persian Govern
ment, in that His Majesty's Government have contributed to the
capital of the company, whereas the Persian Government have
contributed nothing at all. It the Persian representative would like
to know what approximately is the figure which His Majesty's
Government have received in respect of a very large share-holding in
the company, it is, I believe, round about £9 million. I do not
give that as a certain figure, but it goes without saying that it
can be ascertained without any difficulty on reference to the proper
sources.
As for the suggestion contained in paragraph 25 of the Persian
memorandum—and to which I did not allude in my own observations,
because I thought it rather spoke for itself—that if the Anglo-Persian
Oil Company had been left to deal with this matter without having
to pay royalty, then the taxes levied by the taxes department
alone would have amounted to £19,998,509 16s. 0d., I can only
say that I admire profoundly the precision of these calculations,
especially as the other calculations showed a mistake as between
40 million and 9 millions. I must really ask for particulars of
the 16s.!
The whole of that paragraph is, I submit with the greatest
respect, based on a rather obvious fallacy. If, indeed, there was