PERSIAN. CASE

Greymouth Evening Star, 18 April 1946, Page 7

PERSIAN. CASE

BRITAIN’S ATTITUDE

OBJECTION TO NEGOTIATION UNDER DURESS

OIL CONCESSIONS ISSUE (Rec. 10.10 a.m.) LONDON, April 17.

"The Government is studying the published terms of the recent agreement between Russia and Persia, which so far as we can see, does not impinge our oil supplies from Persia,” said the Foreign Secretary, Mr. Bevin, in the House of Commons.

He added that Britain had not objected to Russia making arrangements to obtain oil from Northern Persia, but urged that the negotiations should not be conducted. under duress. Britain was desirous of making further contacts with the Persian Government but was aware that the negotiations should not be reopened before the withdrawal of foreign troops in accordance with the treaty of 1942 was completed. In Teheran to-day, the Prime Minister, Ghavam Sultaneh, said that Persia had sent troops to Kazvin “to establish order after the Russian evacuation.” He denied that Persian troops had been sent to Azerbaijan. “Special arrangements are being made to invite representatives of the people of Azerbaijan to discussions with Government officials,” he added.

RUSSIAN PRESSURE FACTS NOTYET PLACED BEFORE COUNCIL SOVIET DEFEAT EXPECTED NEW YORK. April 17. The correspondent of the New York Times (James Reston) says: “The background to the BritishAmerican insistence that the Security Council retain jurisdiction in the Persian case until the Red Army troops leave Persia is contained in facts which have not yet been placed before the Council. Most members of the Council believe the following to be correct:— “(1) The Persian letter stating that the Teheran Government had full confidence in Moscow, and asking that the Persian case should be withdrawn from the agenda, was written under direct pressure from the Soviet Ambassador to Teheran (Mr. I van Sadchikov). . “(2) That while the Persian Government submitted to the Russian demands that the case be withdrawn, Persian officials explained to other foreign missions in Teheran that Persia had done so only because Mr. Sadchikov had told Ghavam Sultaneh that Russia would consider it an insult if the Persian Government did not request the withdrawal of the case. “Mr. Sadchikov is reported to have declared that keeping the case on the agenda was an ‘unforeseen circumstance’ —the qualification to the withdrawal of the Russian troops (which Russia had previously withdrawn) which could affect the Russian decision about the evacuation of the Red Army.” Mr. Lie’s Bombshell. The unsolicited intervention by the Secretary-General (Mr. Trygve Lie) in the discussion of the Persian case by the Security Council is described by the New York Herald-Tribune as a bombshell. It is, however, unlikely to alter the prospect that Russia will be defeated again when the final test comes. This is the consensus of New York morning newspaper comment. The Herald-Tribune says there are several strong indications that Ivlr. Lie’s warning will carry little weight with either the Security Council or the committee of experts. It points out that forceful arguments against the Russian-Persian case were made at the Council meeting even after Mr. Lie’s warning was received, while the fact that the committee of experts is made up of representatives of the same nations as constitute the Council suggests that at least eight members of that committee will rule that the Persian case is still a matter for the Council. The attitude of several delegations to-night was that although from the strictly legal point of view Mr. Gromyko might have a good case, the spirit of the United Nations Charter would be abused if Mr. Lie’s formula were admitted.

Wisdom Doubted. No delegate questioned Mr. Lie’s sincerity in intervening, but some doubted his wisdom and timing. The Herald-Tribune, in a leading article, says: “Although Mr. Lie’s ingenious contribution may serve _ to bridge the intricate procedural difficulties, it will not resolve the much deeper conflict of purpose and policy which lies behind the procedural wrangle—-a real conflict concerning the position which the United Nations is to occupy in the world. “The Russians are trying to confine the Council to what the Charter makes it—simply an agency to enforce order in an emergency, in general accordance with such policies as can be agreed upon between the three great military Powers. “Although the Russian attitude may seem reprehensible, it must be remembered that, however able and upright the members of the Council may be, they scarcely possess the personal equipment or organisation to administer the earth. “Furthermore, the Council is only crudely representative of the vast forces swirling round it. If the Council is a precise instrument for reflecting and balancing various national interests, and an efficient means of securing prior agreement and developing common from independent policies, then it is in a position to act in Persia as many want it to do. There is a hard core of logic in the Russian attitude which unfortunately does not always find a counterpart in the high-handed but sometimes hasty reaction of their opponents.”

MOSCOW PRESS ALLEGES WESTERfj BLOC MOSCOW, April 16.

The Moscow newspaper New Times has made charges that efforts are being made to turn the Security Council into the, instrument of a BritishAmerican bloc, directed against the peoples of Eastern Europe and the majority of humanity living in colonial and dependent countries. “The aim of the campaign of distortion of Russian aims and methods regarding Persia is quite clear,” says the New Times. “The Security Council has taken up an unlawful position, violating the United Nations Charter in dealing with Persia.”

Defining Russian foreign policy, the paper says: “There is no mystery. The Soviet Union wants a sure and sound peace for all nations, security for its borders, and peaceful and friendly governments in neighbouring countries.”