Letters and Papers Concerning the Trans-Persian Railway and Other Railways in Persia [‎165v] (330/442)

2021 Supply (Committee). HOUSE OF
COMMONS Foreign Office. 2022
• *
m * ■ *.
0 * *
%
e *
* *
[Mr. Bonar Law.]
I am sure the House listened with plea
sure to what was said by the Foreign
Secretary on that subject. No one who
knows the facts will doubt, I think, that
Lord Kitchener, though he has been a
soldier, and has the reputation, and
deserves it, of being a strong man, is as
little likely as anyone who ever exercised
rule in the name of the British people to
do anything which can be regarded as in
the nature of what people would look upon
ns repressive measures, certainly not unless
the circumstances of the time made them
absolutely necessary. The hon. Gentle
man who has just sat down made a refer
ence to the Anglo-Japanese Treaty, and
we were also pleased to hear the reference
to it by the Foreign Secretary. The hon.
Member said he supported it from its
initial stages. I remember I was in the
House at the time, and it is interest
ing, as showing how circumstances alter
our views, that it was not treated
in that way by the majority of the party
opposite, of which he is a Member, when
they sat on this side. It has served a
useful purpose, a purpose which all such
alliances, if carried out in the right spirit,
should promote—the interests of peace.
The very best proof that that has been
the result in connection with the Anglo-
Japanese alliance we see from what was
said by the Foreign Secretary, that even
at a time like this in China, when there
is so much temptation to fish in troubled
waters, there has been absolutely no
danger of foreign complications in the
affairs of China. Another subsidiary
question that has been raised by the hon.
Member was the Trans-Persian Railway.
I think when the right hon. Gentleman reads
his speech in the Official Report in the
morning he will find that the beginning of
it does not coincide very well with what he
said towards the end. At the beginning
he dwelt exclusively on the necessity of
considering our strategic position in India ;
and later on he talked only of commercial
benefits, trusting there would not be too
much strategical consideration given to the
subject. I think we need both. I really do
not intend to quarrel severely with any
thing said by the Foreign Secretary con
cerning this subject. It is, of course, true
that when such a project is brought for
ward many of us will think first of its effect
on our Indian Empire.
I agree that Persia is not an unpeopled
desert. We cannot act like a dog in the
manger and say, because of our interests
in India, we will not allow railways to go
through that country. That is not the
attitude that I would suggest should be
taken up. But this whole project is rather
in the air. The right hon. Gentleman has
told us that the Government has an abso
lutely free hand before anything definite is
done. There is a long interval between
studying a subject like this and projecting
definitely a railway. My hon. Friend gave
a glowing description of the way
such railways are dealt with in the
United States. The important thing
is that the Government have com
mitted themselves to nothing, and the
House will have full opportunity for
consideration before anything is done.
Whatever Government is in power when
the time comes we shall be bound to con
sider it from two points of view. We must
consider it from the point of view of its
effect upon the defences of our Indian
Empire, and we must also regard it from
another point of view. We must take
care that even in its initial stages the
development of the railway does not take
such a form that trade which would other
wise come by the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. will come
by it, and that British trade will lose in
the process. That, I am sure, will be a
point that will be considered by any
Government which is responsible for the
matter. We have not heard to-day so
much as we did on the occasion of the last
Foreign Office Debate of criticism of the
policy of our Government in regard to
Persia. We heard a speech on the old
lines from the hon. Member for East
Mayo (Mr. J. Dillon). I am bound
to say I do not sympathise with that
kind of criticism, and I do not under
stand it. I do not know what
exactly the critics want. The real fact, of
course is that there are things going on
there which everyone would like to see
altered and put right if they could, but
after all we have quite enough to do, I
think, with our own business in one form
or another; and we cannot put everything
right throughout the whole of the world.
I entirely agree with the right hon. Gen
tleman that however undesirable some of
the things are and some of the conditions
which prevail in Persia to-day, and, how
ever grave the difficulties which our Gov
ernment have had to face in connection
with them, they are nothing in comparison
with what the position would have been if
we had not an agreement with Russia.
And even in addition to the difficulties
which face us now, we had the possibility