PERSIAN PROBLEM

Grey River Argus, 29 January 1946, Page 5

PERSIAN PROBLEM

RUSSIAN ACTION U.N.O. Controversy LONDON, January 27. A special “Times” correspondent in Persia stated: To an observer in Teheran, the Russians appear to have repeated in Persian Azerbaijan the process they favoured in other weak border countries—establishment of a regime subservient to their wishes, and the Persians, by their lack of reasonableness, have made it possible that this could be done with some appearance of moral justification. RUSSIAN REPLY TO PERSIANS In a letter to the President of the Security Council, M. Vyshinsky (Russia) said: “The allegation by the Persian delegation of interference by Russia in the internal affairs of Persia is in contradiction with reality, and lacks any foundation. The Russian delegation considers it necessary to point out that the Persian Government is trying to use the presence of foreign troops in order to represent this fact as a violation of Persian sovereignty, and as a cause of events taking place in Azerbaijan. The presence of the Russian troops in Persia was quite legitimate, as the right was granted to Russia under the Treaty of 1942. Events in Azerbaijan were not connected with the presence of Russian troops. This was confirmed by the indisputable objective facts. These events are of an exclusively Persian internal nature. As is known, what is happening in Northern Persia is a demonstration of the aspiration of the population for national autonomy, within the limits of the Persian State, and the achievement of the wishes of the local population which is nothing unusual for a democratic country. The Russian delegation at the same time cannot fail to draw attention to the fact -that propaganda hostile to Russia is growing stronger in Persia and was far from being discouraged by the Persian Government. The -.propaganda was no different in any sense from Fascist propaganda instigated against Russia at the time of Rezashah. Anti-democratic pogrom activity on the part of reactionary forces in Persia was hostile to Russia, which was supported by certain influential Persian groups drawn from the ruling classes and police authorities, created for Azerbaijan and Baku the danger of organised hostile actions, diversions and so forth. Such a situation cannot be tolerated. However, the Russian Government thinks such questions which affect relations between two neighbouring states could and should be settled by means of bilateral negotiations between Russia and Persia. In view' of these facts, and considering that in this case, the conditions envisaged by Articles 34/35 of the Charter are not present, the Russian delegation .regards the Persian delegation’s appeal to the Security Council as lacking ground and categorically opposes its consideration by the Security Council.” BEVIN’S REPLY TO VYSHINSKY Mr. Ernest Bevin said he was tired of the charges made by Russia, both in the Assembly and in private. He had no objection to the fullest investigation and the discussion of the Russian complaint regarding Greece. In the case of the Ukrainian complaint concerning Indonesia, that was primarily a matter for the Dutch Government.

“I am always conscious that a complaint should" be heard,” said Mr. Bevin. “It is a mistake if a Government feels it has a complaint against another Power, great or small, and cannot come to the Council to have the case heard. While the Government I represent has been included in subsequent charges endangering the peace, and, insofar as my Government is principally responsible—in the case of Greece—l offer no objection to the fullest investigation and discussion. lam so tired of these charges by the Soviet Government, in private and in the Assembly, that no one will be happier than I to see them brought into the open to give the British Government a chance to clear its conduct. If there is a complaint from the Persian Government against the Soviet Government, the Persian Government should be given the chance to come to this table and state its case, and we should be in a position to judge whether the case was justified or not. I would like it to go on the agenda to have the discussion in the open because I believe that peace depends on bringing out facts before the world whether they are right or wrong.” Mr. Stettinius moved that the cases of Greece and Indonesia should also e;o on the agenda. He said that the United States Government believed any United Nations Government complaining should have the right to be heard before the Security Council. The proposal for inclusion of the three items on the agenda was carried. The Council will also consider an application from Albania for membership of U.N.O. The Security Council also agreed to a proposal by Mr. Stettinius that the joint military staff committee should meet at London before January 1. The British Government’s desire to have the “situations” in Persia, Greece, and Indonesia considered by the Security Council of the United Nations as soon as possible has, it is understood, prevailed over the American view that a postponement might be more desirable. The Americans’ view was that such major political issues should be postponed until the United Nations’ machinery was in full working order, blit the British Government believes that the Security Council, which has already been ' constituted and is designed to deal with such disputes, is the place in which their case should be made. The Government will welcome an opportunity of making Britain’s position plain to the world, while also believing that any delays would only make worse the situation in Greece and Persia. It is being noted that in contrast to Britain, Russia has so far not show'll any willingness .to agree that the Persian request should be discussed. It is remarked by The Times” that in recent weeks hardly a day has passed without the Russian radio making direct and indirect attacks on 'British policy. /It. is assailed as being “obviously reactionary,” designed “tc crush national liberation movements,” in league with “Fascist cliques.” Britain is implicitly accused of al-

lowing in Greece a “new wave of unprecedented Monarchist terror, with mass murders of E.A.M. followers and with pogroms against Left organisations.” The Greek Prime Minister (Mr. Sofoulis) is declared to be “an instrument of reaction.” the Russians also picture the Persian Government as relying on foreign support, and the allegation has been made,, that the tribes of southern Persia are receiving arms “from foreign sources.” At the same time, the Soviet radio ceaselessly emphasises the need for threePower unity in the interests of the United Nations and democracy. PERSIANS CRITICISED. BY A “TIMES” CORRESPONDENT. LONDON, January 27. A special correspondent of “The Times” in Persia stated: The Persians are in a rather difficult position, and it is largely one of their own making. If the unity and identity of Persia appear imperilled, it is chiefly because the Persians have consistently rejected friendly counsel. Leading Persians are now talking of reform with most commendable ardour, but it is a twelfth-hour conversion, and not altogether convincing. One of the first, reactions of the Persian Government to events in Azerbaijan was convening a Council of State, composed of five ex-Prime Ministers to advise, the Ministry. Instructions to provincial governors to carry 'out elections foi provincial councils followed. This measure, though authorised by the constitution, has been ignored for 40 years. The British had repeatedly urged the establishment of these coilii ■ cils, but the Persians felt such advice, not backed by pressure or threat, could be safely ignored on the excuse that nothing could be done while foreign troops were remaining in the country. The Persians can blame nobody but themselves for having now been forced into a course of action they could have taken some time ago.