"ملف II (F 94) 82/34 امتياز شركة أ.ب.و.ك" [ظ‎‎٦‎١] (٣٦٢/١٢٧)

16
going to be imposed upon the company taxes to the tune of
^19 million, then I wonder how much profit the company would
make, and I also wonder whether it would undertake the Concession
at all'. I am not myself aware what these taxes would be, because
I am informed that there is no tax upon the export of oil;
consequently, the only taxes must be on things imported by the
company, such as machinery. If one says to a British company
that if it endeavours to extract oil from the soil of Persia it will
be required to pay ^19 million in taxation on its machinery, I think
it very improbable that the company will undertake the operation.
That is all I wish to say on the facts.
I would like now to refer to the very frank and very clear state
ment made by the Persian representative on the legal situation.
He has referred particularly to clause 14 and clause 17 of the
Concession, and I agree with him that it is well worth considering
what those two clauses indicate as to the juridical position.
Clause 14 is the clause which provides that the Persian Govern
ment " binds itself to take all and any necessary measures to secure
the safety and the carrying-out of the object of this Concession of
the plant and of the apparatuses of which mention is made for the
purposes of the undertaking of the company and to protect the
representatives agents and servants of the company." It was, of
course, under that article that the company, whether rightly or
wrongly, thought that if its pipe-line, which is plainly one of its
apparatuses, was damaged on Persian territory it might be that
article 14 meant what it said, and that the Persian Government
had guaranteed the safety of the pipe-line. Of course, the Persian
Government, under that article, undertake to keep the company, its
apparatus and servants safe.
I am not concerned as to whether that was right or wrong, for
I quite agree that the conditions of war in many cases make a great
difference, for which allowance must be made; but the Persian
representative said that when the Persian Government were asked
by the United Kingdom Government the other day whether they
were prepared, under article 14, to continue to hold themselves
responsible for the various matters mentioned there, the Persian
Government had been obliged to say that they were no longer
bound by article 14, because they had cancelled the Concession. That
is exactly the point which I endeavoured less clearly to make in my
opening speech, in which I ventured to submit to the Council that
it was plain that there was here the danger of a rupture, since, when
the Persian Government cancelled the Concession, they tore up every
clause, and one clause was that which made special provision for the
protection of the company, the Concession, its servants, agents,
material and plant.
I concede to the representative of Persia that the Persian police
authorities still exist, but, whatever may be the reason, it seems to
have been thought worth while by both sides, when the Concession
was prepared, to insert a specific article guaranteeing that the
Persian Government would protect the Concession and all belonging
to it; and, by the admission made here a half an hour ago by their
representative, the act of the Persian Government has destroyed
that article.
The other point to which I would like to refer concerns article 17,
which is the article which provides for arbitration. "In the event
of there arising between the parties to the Concession any dispute
or difference on the subject," amongst other things, "of the rights
and responsibilities of one or other of the parties," provision was
made for arbitration.
Now, the honourable representative of Persia says: "Yes,
article 17 is in the Concession all right, and arbitration is provided
for by that article," but then he says: "The Persian Government
have torn up the Concession, and therefore there is no longer any
arbitration clause to which the Persian Government can give any
respect or adhesion." That is exactly what I said in my opening
speech. The bargain which was made between the two parties when
the Concession was made was one regarding the constitution of a
tribunal, especially defined in the Concession, to which the company
could go; but the act of the Persian Government in cancelling the
Concession has destroyed the tribunal, and, therefore, the Persian