Letters and Papers Concerning the Trans-Persian Railway and Other Railways in Persia [‎146v] (292/442)

1945
1946
Supply {Committee). HOUSE OF
COMMONS Foreign Office.
[Mr. Lloyd.]
or perhaps in Russia, because that might
be an economic and paying portion of
that railway. If the railway goes as far
as Ispahan, which is the central market
for Persia, which is now furnished largely
by British and Indian goods, and if the
railway is not continued down to the
southern portion of Persia, Russian goods
will find their way in, in ever increasing
quantities, fostered by railway rebates
which are common in Russia, to the
central markets of Persia. We should
then be faced with a persistent demand
from our own traders in India and else-
w'here to provide railway communisatibn
from South Persia to Central Persia, so as
to bring up Bombay cotton and other
goods to meet the competition coming
down from the north.
I entirely agree that the best solution
of this difficulty was given in the course
of the Debate to which my Noble Friend
referred. What has become of the pro
posals which the right hon. Gentleman op
posite foreshadowed for the acquisition of
a British railway concession in Southern
Persia which should itself force its way
into the zone, about which we were talk
ing, in Central Persia ? We were given
definitely to understand, as far as one
can in matters of this kind, that negotia
tions were taking place. My impression
from the terms in which he pointed it out
was that he rather deprecated too much
inquiry at the time because the thing was
going ahead. The whole idea of the
Foreign Secretary was that things were
under way at that particular moment. We
think we may have found that no such con
cession has been asked. If it be asked it
is possible that it may be internationalised,
which I think would be grievously unfair
to British interests; and there is no imme
diate prospect of anything being done at
all. If the right hon. Gentleman had seen
fit to press on such a railway at the time
we asked about it, we might have been in
a far more powerful position to negotiate
the Trans-Persian railway question with
Russia with the minimum of friction and
the maximum of advantage towards our
selves. I believe we have got to consider
this question on an entirely new ground.
I do not feel as hostile to it as some people
in this House. We have got to remember
our European interests. We have got
above all to remember the long ties of
honourable interests which we have had in
Persia itself. We have got to see that the
railway does not mean the loss of inde
pendence of Persia. We have got to see
above all that what has happened in Man
churia does not happen in Persia.
Manchuria was lost to China not through
the railway going through the country, but
through the political guards who looked
after it. We have got to take great care
in any question of a railway through
Persia that we do not repeat that difficulty
and danger, and that the political control
of the railway—it seems difficult at the
moment I admit—will be either under Per
sian guidance or so arranged that the
political independence of the people shall
not be infringed or damaged in any way
at all. I believe that we have got to deal
with this question rapidly and effectively.
We have got, if we mean to keep our good
relations with Russia, which I believe are
immensely valuable to us, and are going
to be increasingly valuable to us, to put
aside some of the old suspicions with re
gard to Russia. On the other hand, we
cannot afford to take the slightest risk in
Baluchistan or on the borders of India.
Russia is, I believe, more than friendly
disposed to us, and I believe that she has
conceived this railway in no hostile spirit
to us. If that be so, it will only be an
easier matter for the right hon. Gentleman
to secure in so far as any part of the rail
way touches on any Indian interest that
that section shall be free from all risk or
danger to the Indian frontier, so that we
may after this railway is constructed not
lose our friendship, and that instead of
there being a source of friction in the build
ing of that railway, it may protect and
improve the good relations that have
existed between us.
Sir G. SCOTT ROBERTSON: With
much of the interesting speech of the Noble
Lord who opened the Debate I am very
cordially in agreement. Although I think
perhaps he has over-accentuated the points
of disagreement in the immediate past be
tween ourselves and France and Russia,
still we must congratulate ourselves that
especially in connection with France those
points have practically disappeared. I
refer of course to the question of gunboats
on the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. . Owing to the energy
and arrangements of the British Admiral
Slade we know that an entirely different
system now prevails, or at least will from
September, and arms imported will be
under control in such a manner that they
can only be sent in future to authorised
areas and we shall not run that severe risk
which we have experienced of tribes on
the frontier being supplied, not only with