Coll 28/95 ‘Persia. Relations with H.M.G. Private claims against H.M.G.: case of the S.S. “Kara Deniz”.’ [‎94r] (187/691)

21
on the violation of her neutrality by the belligerent Powers; because of the
dislocation of internal organisation owing to the operations of the belligerent
Powers, notwithstanding Persian protests, &c.
59. The above having been their attitude in the past, it is hardly to be
^ expected that in present circumstances the Persian Government will be found
less difficult to deal with; while, so far as regards war-time claims, they are
probably in a position to advance claims of considerable magnitude against us on
behalf of individuals and private institutions, who are not likely to estimate any
losses at a low figure. But as regards claims for damage done by British troops
in Persia, the agreement of the 9th-10th August, 1919, referred to in
paragraph 51, which appears to have had temporary validity, seems to absolve
us from claims over and above such as may be made by individuals and private
institutions, which by that agreement were to be dealt with independently.
60. In paragraph 48 Sir C. Hurst’s suggestion of 1923 that a preliminary
examination of claims should take place between representatives of the Persian
Government and our Legation was mentioned. Efforts in this direction appear
to have been deferred at Tehran for some years thereafter pending the possible
settlement of other questions and the classification of our claims. Meanwhile,
Sir R. Clive in 1928 laid before the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. Sub-Committee his general
views as to the possibility of securing a settlement of our various private and
commercial claims outstanding. Most of these claims, he said, were war debts
which the Persian Government would never admit, and many of the claimants
had doubtless written them off; in his opinion, the best means of settlement would
be to induce the Persian Government to pay a lump sum of £250.000 in final
settlement. This proposal was advocated in the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. Sub-Committee’s
report, which was approved by the Cabinet. Accordingly, on the 7th November,
1928, general instructions were sent to Sir R. Clive in which he was authorised
to reduce the amount to be paid by the Persian Government for these private
and commercial claims to a round figure of from £300,000 down to £250,000,
representing, it was said, about one-fifth of the total amounts claimed.
61. Sir R. Clive, however, saw difficulties. The Persian Government might,
he considered, (1) either refuse to recognise the claims altogether, or (2) might
reject the reduced figures unless allowed to go through the claims themselves.
As regards (1), he suggested we should either insist on an actual payment or,
alternatively, on payment of £300,000 of the debt owing by the Persian Govern
ment to His Majesty’s Government, settling in the latter event the claims
ourselves in London out of this amount, and levying a percentage for the cost of
distribution; while, as regards (2), he imagined that in this event we should have
to submit the actual claims to the Persian Government. These suggestions,
however, did not meet with approval here, and in a further instruction to
Sir R. Clive of the 27th February, 1929, it was pointed out that the Persian
Railway Syndicate’s claim in itself amounted to nearly £250,000, and that the
cutting down of this and other claims sponsored in the past by His Majesty’s
Government would doubtless arouse much opposition; it was preferable therefore
to divide the claims into two categories, the first consisting of the Persian
Railway Syndicate’s claims and others of special importance, to be settled by
separate negotiation with the Persian Government; the second consisting of
minor claims, war claims and brigandage claims, where less objection existed to
pressing for a lump sum in final settlement, by discussing certain representative
claims, with a view of reaching an agreement on the basis of a final pavment of
some proportion of their face value; or else, alternatively, a formal claims
agreement, on the analogy of one concluded with the Mexican Government, mioffit
be negotiated, providing that all outstanding claims should be submitted to a
Mixed Claims Commission with a neutral president, or to a single neutral
arbitrator to be chosen by agreement.
62. Shortly afterwards, as recorded in the Tehran annual report for 1929
(p. 21), the Persian Minister of Court, in March of that year, suggested a
commission of enquiry, with representatives on both sides, to prepare^ a report
which might serve as a basis for subsequent negotiations. A rough analysis of
our claims having been made at our Legation, a preliminary meeting was held at
the end of April between representatives of the Legation and the Persian
Ministry for Foreign Affairs. The latter were, however, of opinion that each
claim would have to be treated on its merits, and that no general principle could