Letters and Papers Concerning the Trans-Persian Railway and Other Railways in Persia [‎144r] (287/442)

1935 Supply (Committee). 10 July 1912 Foreign Office. 1936
Mr. PONSONBY: We have in the one
day allotted to the Foreign Office Vote to
compress a great many subjects into a
short space of time, and I will endeavour
to follow the Noble Lord who has just sat
down in trying to confine my remarks to
the briefest possible space. I am very
glad that the Noble Lord—who is well
known as an expert in his knowledge of
the Near East—should have given his
opinion about Persia, and should have
brought forward the subject of Persia as
the most important foreign subject which
ought to engage our attention at the pre
sent time; and also that he should have
expressed his opinion with regard to rail
way projects in Persia. I should like to
supplement very briefly what has been said
on that subject. There are several con
siderations to be taken into account, and
I do not expect that the Foreign Secretary
will be able to give us any information
upon this subject to-day. I do not see
that we can expect it. The Societe
D’Etude has only just set to work in Paris,
and we cannot expect the Government to
tell us whether they have a policy, or
■ whether they are committed to any project
that has been brought forward; but I do
think this a very valuable occasion for
those of us who are interested in the sub
ject to submit our views to the Foreign
Secretary in order that he may realise, in
some degree, what the general opinion in
this country is in regard to railways in
Persia. I regard what is commonly called
the Trans-Persian Railway with a great
deal of misgiving. The considerations to be
taken into account are, firstly, our com
mercial interests and Indian commercial
interests; secondly, strategic interests;
and, lastly, but by no means least, the in
terests of Persia herself. With regard to
our commercial interests, I entirely agree
with w'hat the Noble Lord said in the con
cluding part of his speech, that we should
benefit a great deal more by railway
development in the South-West of Persia
than by any projected line extending right
across to the South-East. Any project for
the development of our trade from
the head of the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. up
to Ispahan and Teheran would un
doubtedly be of benefit; but the projected
line beyond Teheran, which comes down
through Yezd to the sea coast, really
strikes me as a perfectly mad project. It
is undoubtedly a danger from the strategic
point of view, and when we consider the
Indian commercial point of view we find
that the Chamber of Commerce at Karachi
has passed a resolution very strongly
against it. In a resolution dealing with
this project they say:—
It will be tantamount to making Russia a present
of nearly the whole of the,fruits of the joint enterprise,
because while we at this end would be making railway
access to Persia as difficult as possible, Russia’s avowed
policy at the other end is to make the railway access to
Persia as easy as possible. No railway at all might
conceivably be preferable to that sort of railway.”
They want a railway that goes perfectly
straight up and which does not go to the
sea coast at all. That is strategically im
possible. It seems there is a great con
flict of opinion, and I hope the Government
will not come to any decision on the matter
before they have consulted all the interests
concerned, especially the Persian Govern
ment. Do the Persians want this rail
way l After all it is a con-
5.0 p.m. sideration, when other Powers
are projecting railways in a
country like Persia, that the Government
of Persia should be consulted. We may
say we cannot stand in the way of the
development of a railway system in a
country like Persia, which may be con
sidered rather backward. On the other
hand, Persia must be allowed to develop
in her own way, and I do not see that
Russia or Great Britain has any right to
force upon them a railway system if they
do not want it.
That brings me to the general question
of Persia. The Noble Lord (Earl of
Ronaldshay) referred to past history, but
I should like to bring the question of
Persia a little more up to date. All the
fears which w r e expressed with some force
at the beginning of the Session, on the
Address, have been justified. Persia is in
a state of complete chaos, Russian troops
are still occupying the country, the hand
of Russia is pressing much more heavily
and severely even than w r e anticipated,
and there is a great danger of the ex-Shah
being brought back to power under the
protection of Russia. That is a very
serious state of affairs, and when we look
at it in connection with the project for a
railway, it makes us feel that the railway,
in which Russia would be so much in
terested and over wffiich she would have
such complete control, would take away
the last shred of Persian independence.
At any rate, I should like to plead with the
Foreign Secretary and ask that the House
of Commons should be fully consulted be
fore His Majesty’s Government embarks on
any distinct line of policy in regard to this
Trans-Persian Railway. We really ought
to be treated quite fairly in this matter.
I do not think we are always treated quite