Coll 28/67 ‘Persia. Annual Reports, 1932–’ [‎75v] (150/644)

317. This agreement was regarded by both sides as a fair and equitable
settlement; the company recognised that, although they had had to pay heavily
for a settlement, the prospects of peaceful co-operation, together with the absence
from the new concession of any points likely to lead to future dispute, was worth
the cost; the Shah and the Persian public generally, though perhaps not all the
members of the Government, recognised that Persia had made a good bargain.
The Persian press, which had carried on a strenuous campaign against His
Majesty’s Government and the company during the opening months of the year,
welcomed the agreement, but without making any attempt to claim a Persian
victory. Opinion in Persia was upon the whole endorsed by public opinion in
the United Kingdom and elsewhere. It is worth noting that, in the opinion of
the company’s local representatives, the only clause which contains the seeds of
future trouble is that which provides for “ Persianisation.”
318. On the 26th May M. Benes told the Council of the League that he had
heard from the two parties that a settlement had been reached, and asked to be
given an opportunity of submitting a final report at the next ordinary session.
The Council adopted this proposal. The Persian Government had, as a matter
of fact, as M. Benes stated in his report, informed the Secretary-General direct
on the 31st May that the dispute was over. They had, however, consented, when
asked to do so, to act in concert with His Majesty’s Government in submitting
the text of the agreement to the rapporteur, in accordance with the usual practice,
as soon as it was ready.
319. The new concession passed its first reading in the Majlis on the
23rd May and its second on the 28th May. It received the Royal assent on the
29th May, and was published in the Official Gazette of the Ministry of Justice
on the 6th July. The proceedings in the Majlis were devoid of interest, being
mainly confined to points of detail and grammar in the text.
320. On the 6th June the company paid to the Persian Government
(a) £1 million on account of outstanding claims; (b) £1,286,000 on account of
extra royalty and taxation for the years 1930 and 1931; and (c) £1,502 000 as
royalty and taxation for the year 1932.
321. The dispute was finally and officially terminated on the 12th October,
when the Council of the League took note of a report by M. Benes, the relevant
part of which ran as follows :—
Since then (i.e., the 26th May) there has been another communication
from the Persian Government, dated the 5th June (Document C 371 M 182
1933, VII), announcing that the Persian Parliament has ratified the new
concession to the Anglo-Persian Oil Company.
‘‘ The text of the new concession is appended to this report.
, J n , T^ es ?- c i rcum stances, I am happy to say that the Council may take
it that the dispute between His Majesty’s Government in the United
Kingdom and the Imperial Government of Persia, which was brought before
it last December, is now finally settled.”
The Secretary of State and the Persian representative both made statements
expressing the satisfaction of their Governments and their gratitude to the
TCL'J) r pOTt6>UT.
322 On the 21st October the registrar of the Permanent Court of Inter
national Justice informed His Majesty’s Government that the court would be
W1 .j the occasion arose, to undertake certain arbitration function^
conferred upon it by article 22 of the agreement.
'ir 6 sl S nature of the agreement, relations between the Persian
knnatiV^aftbe^ 6 com P an J ' vere S 00 ^ although the former expressed some
S “Tff ° ^ com P an J ln beginning the development of the
Nalt Khaneh field and the construction of a refinery at Kermanshah.
324. Mirza Isa Khan Feyz was removed from the post of Imoerial
Commissioner ,n London in December 1932, and died very shortly afterwards
November 1933 SShar Khan Zannkafsh was appointed to succeed him ’
in