PERSIAN OIL WELLS

Greymouth Evening Star, 3 November 1944, Page 5

PERSIAN OIL WELLS

DISPUTE WITH RUSSIA LONDON, Nov. 2. The dispute about the Persian oil concessions has blown up into a genuine storm. The Persian Prime Minister’s announcement that not only Russian, but also British and American claims for concessions have been rejected, has given impetus to vig- - orbus Russian propaganda, which has given prominence to a more serious complaint that Persia has been sabotaging lend-lease. " Reports from Moscow say that the Russian newspapers are featuring news that 20,000 people noisily paraded in front of the Parliament Building in Teheran, demanding Mohammed Saed's resignation from the Prime Ministership, following the publication of the interview with the Soviet Vice-Commissar for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Kavtzaradze). (Mr. Kavtzaradze said that the Persian Government had not given a single plausible explanation for its decision to postpone the granting of oil concessions till after the war. He said that Mohammed Saed’s “disloyal attitude” to the Soviet precluded further co-operation with him). Russian newspapers describe this demonstration as “the latest development in the Persian Government crisis arising out of the refusal to grant Russia concessions. Similar demonstrations are reported from other Persian cities. "Pravda” quotes the Teheran newspaper, “Irane Ma,” as saying: “Saed has committed a great crime and blunder by permitting relations between the Soviet Union and Persia to grow I worse, and therefore Saed must resign.”

The Soviet Tass News Agency says: “Persian public opinion is against the Government’s decision not to grant concessions. Persian newspapers take the view not only that Saed’s refusal is opposed to Persia’s fundamental interests, but that he has given a free hand to reactionary elements in Persia, who foment bloodshed and disorder. Saed claims that the previous Government was overthrown by Parliament because of its too favourable attitude to foreign concessionaries, a statement which suggests that nationalism in the Teheran Parliament is strong enough to compel a negative policy on concessions.” “The Russian accusation that Persia has sabotaged the transport .of lend-lease supplies en route from the United States to Russia is one of obvious gravity,’\says the “Economist.” “If the charge is taken literally it means that the present Persian Government has violated the treaty of 1942, guaranteeing Russia all facilities for the smooth flow of American goods and weapons across Persia. In return for this undertaking, Russia, as well as Britain, agreed not to interfere in Persia’s internal affairs and to withdraw Soviet forces from the zone of occupation in northern Persia after the end of hostilities. It remains to be seen whether Russia will reconsider her pledge of nonintervention in the light of the alleged Persian sabotage. British observers in Moscow believe that Russia will get oil concessions from Persia eventually.”