How Dr. Mosaddegh Defeated Britain at the Security Council?

Marking the 75th anniversary of Dr. Mohammad Mosaddegh's appearance at the United Nations Security Council, former diplomat and historian Kourosh Ahmadi revisits the documents of the case in an op-ed, showing how the Mosaddegh government's sound legal and political strategy enabled it to defeat Britain at the Security Council.

Korosh Ahmadi, former diplomat and contemporary history researcher: 23 Mehr 1330 (October 15, 1951) is the anniversary of Dr. Mossadegh's participation in the meeting of the Security Council in relation to the Council's consideration of the British government's complaint against Iran regarding the nationalization of the oil industry. In this note, this position is discussed based on the documents of the Security Council. This experience showed that with the right policy and method, even in the Security Council, it is possible to win over the great powers.

After the British government on 4 June 1330 (26 May 1951) on behalf of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (the company from now on) filed a complaint against Iran in connection with the nationalization of the oil industry in the International Court of Justice and did not get the desired result from its complaint, [1] it thought of taking the matter to the UN Security Council. At the request of England and despite Iran's protest, the court issued "temporary measures" on July 5, during which it asked the parties to "not take any action that would violate the rights of the other party or cause the deterioration or expansion of the dispute" and that the company's operations "continue under the supervision of its management." In this temporary ruling, the court did not discuss its jurisdiction and emphasized that the issuance of temporary measures "does not in any way mean a prior judgment regarding the jurisdiction of the court to deal with the subject matter of the lawsuit and does not affect the defendant's right to present his arguments against the jurisdiction of the court." [2]

The Mossadegh government's reaction to the court's temporary ruling was that, while continuing to protest the jurisdiction of the court, it also protested the issuance of a temporary ruling and the quick decision on this matter without Iran's participation in the relevant meeting, and refused to implement temporary measures and stop the implementation of the law on the nationalization of the oil industry.

Due to Iran's non-acceptance of the Court's temporary ruling, the British government appealed to the Security Council in September 1951 and demanded the implementation of the Court's temporary ruling by Iran. The British document was Article 94 (2) of the United Nations Charter. In this paragraph, it is said that "if one side of the dispute does not fulfill its obligations under the ruling issued by the court, the other side can take the issue to the Security Council. If the council deems it necessary, it can make a recommendation or make a decision to implement the verdict. In this regard, England put a draft resolution on the agenda of the Security Council in October.

Dr. Mossadegh decided to personally attend the meeting of the Security Council. In the meeting of the council, which was held on October 15 (23 Mehr 1331), the British ambassador introduced the draft of the British resolution and its main request at the beginning of the meeting and before Dr. Mossadegh's speech, which is "inviting Iran to implement the temporary measures of the court and fully respect it". [3] After the words of the British ambassador, Mossadegh began his speech by emphasizing two points: firstly, that the Security Council does not have the authority to deal with the British complaint, and secondly, that "the Security Council, as the highest institution of the international system that is responsible for maintaining international peace and security, is the last refuge of weak and oppressed nations and the last champion of protecting their rights." He added: "The council can handle this great mission only if the great powers respect the principles on which this organization was established."

In this speech, Mossadegh also explained about the company's performance. Among other things, he said: "The former company extracted 315 million tons of oil in 50 years, and only 110 million pounds became Iran's share [4] and in only one year 1948, according to the company's balance sheet, the net income of the former company was 62 million pounds, of which only 9 million pounds became Iran's share, and 28 million pounds were paid to the British government as income tax. While the company never allowed Iran to access its accounts during these 50 years. He also said that after the nationalization of oil, Iran has not given up any efforts to reach an agreement with the company and pay compensation to it and to continue selling oil to England, and is ready to resume efforts in this matter at any time.

He then explained that Iranian people have one of the lowest living standards. Despite such conditions, British control over Iran's oil has practically caused no contribution to improve the welfare conditions of the Iranian people and the technical growth or industrial development of the country. He then reiterated Iran's position on the court's lack of jurisdiction to deal with the British complaint and therefore the court's lack of jurisdiction to issue temporary measures.

In the continuation of the text, which was read by Al-Hiyar Saleh, the disqualification of the council to deal with the issue was discussed in detail. Saleh clarified that Iran's oil, like Iran's soil, water and mountains, is a part of the property of the Iranian nation, and the Iranian nation will not entrust any non-Iranian person or entity to make decisions about its assets. He discussed in detail the oil contract of 1933 and its conclusion between the Iranian government and a private company and that this contract never had anything to do with the British government and the British government had no role in this dispute. Saleh also gave a detailed explanation about Iran's obligation to pay compensation to the company in accordance with the law of 30 April 1951 of the Iranian Parliament and allocating 25% of the income of the National Iranian Oil Company for this purpose, including setting the value of the company's shares as a basis for determining the amount of compensation or adapting any method for paying compensation in other countries, including England. With these explanations, he rejected the claim of confiscating the company's property. In another part of this speech, Iran's readiness to hire company technicians in the National Oil Company was discussed. Another important point that was emphasized in Iran's speech was the conflict of British demand with the provisions of Charter 94. It was clarified that Article 94 refers to the implementation of the final decision of the court, not temporary measures, which are still far from the final decision.

Following the speech of Mossadegh and Saleh, which lasted nearly two hours, the meeting of the council was suspended and the daily negotiations continued until October 19. In these meetings, the representatives of India and Yugoslavia proposed an amendment to the British draft, which aimed to remove the reference to the interim judgment of the Court. The American representative, while agreeing to the amendment by India and Yugoslavia, demanded that the text refer to the "difference between Iran and England" as a fact that the Security Council cannot be concerned about. England accepted this American amendment and presented a new draft [5]. The most important feature of this new draft was that the mention of temporary measures of the court was removed from it. But it still mentioned the existence of a "difference between Iran and England". The American ambassador, who raised this idea, said in his words: "There is obviously a difference between Iran and England that the Security Council should be concerned about." [6] Although this new version was accepted by England, it was decided on October 17 that there were not enough votes to approve it. Finally, France suggested that the Security Council postpone negotiations on the issue until after the Court's decision on its jurisdiction. The French proposal was approved on October 19, and it was decided that the matter would be postponed until after the court had decided on its jurisdiction. [7] This decision was a rejection of the British complaint and a great victory for Iran

The members of the Security Council at that time included five permanent members (the United States, England, France, National China and the Soviet Union) and six non-permanent members (Brazil, Ecuador, India, the Netherlands, Turkey and Yugoslavia). The representative of Brazil initially supported the British draft and the representative of Türkiye was mostly silent. But the representative of Ecuador strongly supported Iran. The performance of other members was explained above.

As we know, the court finally announced its verdict on July 22, 1952 on July 31, 1952, declaring its lack of jurisdiction to deal with the lawsuit brought by England against Iran. In this ruling, it was argued that the court has jurisdiction only in the context of Iran's declaration dated September 1932, based on the acceptance of the jurisdiction of the Permanent International Court of Justice PCIJ, under Article 36 (2) of the statute of the court, and this declaration of Iran includes disputes related to the implementation of treaties or conventions with other governments that Iran has ratified after the date of publication of the declaration. The court also rejected the British claim that the 1933 oil contract between Iran and the company has a "dual character", meaning that it is both a concession contract to the company and a contract with the British government, and emphasized that Iran's contract with the British company was a private contract and therefore does not fall within the jurisdiction accepted by Iran in the framework of the 1932 declaration. The court also rejected the British argument regarding Iran's acceptance of the jurisdiction of the court in relation to the friendship treaties between Iran and Denmark, Switzerland and Turkey to the 1933 agreement. England has argued in this regard that because Iran had accepted the principle of mutual respect with England in the old treaties, therefore the acceptance of the court's jurisdiction in the treaties with the three mentioned countries also extends to the agreements with England.

[1] Mossadegh government's response to Iran's complaint at the Hague Court, Ambassador Arjan, 19 June 1405.

and "Iran's Legal Defense at the International Court of Justice"

[2] Anglo-Iranian Oil Company Case, 'Order of 5 July 1951', ICJ Reports 1951, p. 93-94.

[3] Verbatim record: 560th session of the UN Security Council, 15 Oct. 1951

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/

[4] The price of each ton of crude oil in the 1940s was between 7.5 and 20 dollars.