THE SITUATION IN PERSIA (Hansard, 5 July 1951)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, before we go on with this debate, I think it will be the desire of your Lordships that I should take this opportunity to make a Statement about Persia similar to that just being made by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"Since my last Statement to the House about the situation in Persia, on June 27, the International Court at The Hague has heard our application for an interim injunction requiring the Persian Government to do nothing which would prejudice the case which we have brought before the Court. That hearing took place on June 30, and the Court's decision is expected this afternoon. I should make it clear, perhaps, that this decision will treat only with our application for an in 680 junction and will not touch on our main case.
"On June 30, His Majesty's Ambassador at Teheran delivered a Note to the Persian Minister of Foreign Affairs. The text of this has been published in the Press and therefore I would say only that its main point was to emphasise that responsibility for the withdrawal of tankers and the progressive closing down of the Company's installations which would be necessitated thereby resulted solely from the present intransigent attitude of the Persian Government.
"The next step was the suspension by the Persian Government of the so-called Sabotage Bill which, as I mentioned in my statement on June 26, had recently been introduced in the Persian Lower House. This indication that the Persian Government were becoming aware of the need for restraint was welcomed; but it has been offset, unfortunately, by other action against the Company. The Information Offices of the Company have been closed down by the Persian Government, and the documents that have been taken away have been distorted to suggest that they were incriminating. The documents in question were such as one would expect to find in any information office, official or commercial, in any country. The house of the Company's representative in Teheran has also been occupied, apparently on the personal instructions of the Persian Prime Minister, and the Company's papers that were on the premises have been taken away. Mr. Mason, who became the Company's chief representative at Abadan when Mr. Drake was compelled to leave, has been evicted from his offices, and the so-called Temporary Board of Directors which the Persian Government have sent down to the oilfields refuse to recognise the Company's representative; instead, the Board have nominated one of their members as General Manager. One of the Company's representatives elsewhere has similarly been evicted. There have also been other unwarranted interferences in the Company's affairs, such as the requisitioning of the Abadan Manager's motor cars and house for the personal use of Mr. Makki, the leading member of the Temporary Board.
681 "I do not understand what the Persians hope to gain by these tactics. They keep professing that they want to retain British technicians and that they treat foreigners in Persia with traditional courtesy. At all events, it is clear that conditions are becoming intolerable. Our attitude remains the same. The Company has no desire to withdraw from an industry which it has built and brought into a high state of efficiency. Yet this, with all the disastrous consequences to Persia that would ensure, is what the Persian Government seem bent on forcing the Company to do.
"As regards the physical safety of our people in South Persia, we have again reminded the Persian Government of its responsibility. At the same time, we leave nothing to chance. H.M.S. "Mauritius," as the House is aware, is lying close to Abadan, and all practical measures to protect British lives, should the Persians fail to discharge their responsibilities, have been taken."

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
My Lords, I should like to thank the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor for repeating this Statement that has been made by the Foreign Secretary in another place; but I must say that I have formed a most unhappy impression of it, and especially of that portion dealing with evacuation. If the noble and learned Viscount will forgive me for saying so, I could not help feeling that it was deplorably weak. After dealing with continued and humiliating interferences with British citizens, which the Government themselves say are intolerable—and I am sure we all agree with that—the Statement goes on to say: The Company has no desire to withdraw from an industry which it has built and brought into a high state of efficiency. Yet this…is what the Persian Government appear bent on forcing the Company to do. Why this deliberate dissociation between the Company and His Majesty's Government in this matter? Surely, if the Company does not desire to withdraw, it is the duty of His Majesty's Government to protect British citizens, who are remaining at present, under great provocation, to carry on their lawful avocations, 682 which in fact constitute, as every one of us knows, a vital British national interest.
I do not want to ask His Majesty's Government this afternoon to give any detailed statement as to the precautions which they may be taking against emergencies. But I do suggest that it is, I will not say desirable, but almost vital, that they should make here and now, or in the very early future, a statement, both for the purpose of making our position clear to the Persian Government and, indeed, sustaining the spirit of our own people in the oilfields in Persia, who are subject to such odious pressure. They must say—-and the sooner the better—that they are strongly opposed to the evacuation of the British oil personnel in Persia, and that they will take all steps necessary, if the situation requires it, to protect them. If that is not done, I believe that the whole situation will slip away and a position will arise in the Middle East which none of us would wish or hardly dare to contemplate. As I say, I do not like to ask the noble and learned Viscount to give such an assurance to-day, since I gave him no notice of what I was going to say. But I reserve the right to raise this matter on an early occasion, arid I beg the Government to take some account of what I have said. For I am sure that I represent a very large body of opinion in this country.

§ VISCOUNT SAMUEL
My Lords, the statement just made by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, will have taken the Flouse somewhat by surprise, as it has taken me and no doubt the members of the Government. The noble Marquess's observations raise very grave issues on which your Lordships would not wish to decide without careful deliberation. When he says that the Government ought to make it clear that they are strongly opposed to evacuation, and that they would be willing to take any measures that are necessary to protect the officers of the Company who are carrying out their duties, it involves, as I take it, military occupation, in such a contingency, of Abadan and the neighbouring districts. As I say, I feel that your Lordships would certainly wish to consider in a very serious spirit such a grave situation from the point of view of national and of international interest, before endorsing a proposition made without previous notice to the House.
683 Furthermore, when the noble Marquess condemns the Government for drawing a distinction between the Company and themselves, from the legal standpoint and the standpoint of international law there is a distinction. The interests of the Company have been brought before the United Nations, who now have the matter under their immediate consideration. The question is sub judice, and I am not at all sure that it would be advisable suddenly to take the matter out of the hands of the Company, so to speak, and to make it directly a Government matter all through. It is a legal question, which raises points of international law. As believers in the upholding of international law and the authority of the United Nations, and, therefore, of the International Court, we should bear in mind the present situation before making any such change. For the rest, I would only express gratitude to the Lord Chancellor for having once more kept your Lordships' House so fully informed of the stages of development of this unhappy question; but I cannot associate noble Lords on these Benches, and those who think with us outside, with the full observations of the noble Marquess.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
My Lords, in view of what the noble Viscount has said, perhaps I might be allowed to point out that where I said that the interests of the Company and His Majesty's Government coincide was in the protection of British citizens. That was never mentioned at any point in the noble and learned Viscount's Statement this afternoon.

§ VISCOUNT SAMUEL
Perhaps not, but it has been mentioned again and again by the representatives of the Government in this House and in another place. The Prime Minister, I know, has said it. It is not my business to defend him—it is probably more for the members of the Front Bench opposite to intervene, if they so desire but the Prime Minister has said again and again that the Government would make it their absolute duty to protect, so far as they are physically able, the lives and limbs of the servants of the Company should they be attacked or endangered.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords. I should just like to add that this 684 Statement is made on the eve of the decision by the Hague Court. It is quite obvious that that decision may profoundly affect the matter. Therefore, I anticipate that it is quite possible that early next week a fuller statement will be made. I should also add that I have made it plain in this Statement that the position which I previously explained to your Lordships remains what it was; and in the last Statement, I said, in a perfectly unequivocal way, that His Majesty's Government were prepared to go to all lengths and take every possible step open to them to protect the lives of their subjects who are working in Persia. There can be no question but that that statement still holds. For the rest, I would say that the interests of His Majesty's Government and the Company are, in this matter, of course, identical; they are in concert the whole time, and taking every step together.