701.9111/594
The Chargé in Iran (Merriam) to the Secretary of State
[Received August 24.]
Sir: I have the honor to inform the Department that at the request of His Excellency A. Soheily, Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, I called upon him at the Foreign Office on July 23, 1936, accompanied by the Legation Interpreter.
Somewhat wearily, and with a smile which appeared to me to indicate that his heart was not in it, Mr. Soheily produced a clipping from the Brooklyn Eagle of June 13, 1936 which, under the caption “Stranger than Fiction,” reproduced a sketch of the Shah, with the legend: “The present Shah of Persia descends from no long line of royalty—he himself was a stable boy originally.”
[Page 368]His Excellency said that he had had the clipping on his desk for some time and had been undecided whether to bring it to my notice, but he had eventually concluded that it would be best to do so. He said that he realized my Government had no control over the press, but asked me to request the Department of State to make an investigation with a view to determining what lay behind the publication of such derogatory remarks in the American press which, as I could observe, kept recurring.
In reply, I first observed that the same sketch contained a somewhat derogatory reference to the American Pilgrims, and then briefly described the serial nature of the drawing, which merely illustrated facts unusual to Americans. The latter generally assumed that the Shah had inherited the throne of Iran from a long line of former Shahs. To them, therefore, the fact that His Imperial Majesty was what we would call a “self-made man”, would be unusual. Far, however, from considering either the legend or the sketch derogatory, the American reaction would be just the opposite. The “self-made man” was a type with which we were thoroughly familiar and which we admired and respected. There was a suspicion in the United States that whatever a man inherited, he possibly would not have been able to acquire or achieve by his own efforts. But we knew that any individual who, like the present Shah, had hewn his way through to the top, must be a real and a great man.
I added that the statement which appeared in the legend was perhaps derived from the unfortunate Mirror article, and that I would communicate his request to the Department of State which was, of course, as interested as the Iranian Government in discovering whether there was any force at work which felt that it had something to gain by disturbing Irano-American relations through the appearance of offensive statements in the press concerning the Shah. I doubted greatly, however, whether any such state of affairs existed, was convinced that American journalists and editors had only sincere feelings of friendship and admiration for Iran and the Shah, and said that such unfortunate statements as appeared could be laid to ignorance.
I then pointed out that if the legend had been intended to be derogatory, this feeling would have been reflected in the drawing. But the sketch was of a vigorous, capable and intelligent man. I added a few remarks to the effect that the origins of several of our Presidents had been humble, but that this fact increased their appeal to the people of the country and the respect in which they were held, rather than the reverse.
Mr. Soheily replied that His Majesty had never claimed to be descended from a line of kings, and that French publications had from time to time referred to the Shah’s earlier career as a private soldier, [Page 369] and to this His Majesty had taken no exception, but that he did take exception to references to himself as a “stable-boy”, which were not true.
I replied that the original statement to the latter effect had appeared in the Mirror and that, as the Under Secretary knew, this untrue statement had been corrected.
Considering the opportunity a good one, as Soheily seemed to be carrying out his duty without real zest and with some boredom, although conscientiously, I remarked that although the American press had given a good deal of annoyance to the Iranian Government, it could be turned to good account. I hoped that when a new Iranian Minister should be appointed to Washington, he would approach the press directly and in the right way; he would find that it was conducted by friendly, decent and capable men who would willingly learn the truth about Iran, and print material that would be pleasing both to Iran and to ourselves.
Soheily observed that it did not look as though the appointment of a new Minister would take place in the near future.
I said that naturally I did not presume to assume that a new Minister would be appointed soon, though of course I hoped one would be. I was merely trying to state the problem he would be up against, and to indicate some of the methods of dealing with it based on my personal knowledge of American conditions.
Soheily then said that huge appropriations would be needed to use with the foreign press for the purposes which I mentioned, which were not available.
I said that an appropriation was unnecessary, that I did not have paid propaganda in mind—that, as a matter of fact, it was impossible to buy news space in American journals. What I had in mind was that the new Minister would best meet the press problem by cultivating friendly personal relations with journalists and editors, and by informing them of what was going on in Iran. These men were friendly disposed and on the lookout for new and unusual material, and there was certainly an enormous amount of interest attaching to this country of which they were now largely in ignorance.
I added that American newspaper men hated nothing more than to see a foreign Minister running to the Department of State with complaints about the press. They liked a direct approach, and if an Iranian Minister who should be displeased about the press went directly to the editor and asked: “Why do you print such things about us?” he would be likely to get satisfactory results.
Soheily was unwilling to be led too far astray, and merely repeated his original request, to which I again assented. In reply to a question intended to bring out how much urgency he attached to the matter, he said that he did not think there was any necessity for using [Page 370] the telegraph, but that he did wish to have a definite reply, because he was keenly interested in establishing who or what, in Iran, the United States or elsewhere, was responsible for attaching to the Shah, in the American press, descriptions of an untrue and offensive nature. He thought that it would be better to explain the matter fully to the Department of State in writing, and not to use the telegraph.
At the conclusion of the interview, he said smilingly that by now I must feel sure, every time he asked me to see him, that some bad news was in store. I replied cheerfully that it did not bother me in the slightest and that I was quite used to it, though I hoped that some day he would have something pleasant to impart.
In view of the foregoing, I should be grateful if the Department would ascertain and forward to this Legation, for verbal communication to the Under Secretary, the source of the statement printed with the sketch above-mentioned and also, if possible, the source of the similar statement contained in the notorious Mirror article of February 8, 1936. As respects the latter, I have seen several vague statements to the effect that the assertion in the Mirror that the Shah was once a “stable-boy” in the service of the British Legation was based on a similar assertion which appeared previously in some non-American publication. While we should not seek to shift an unpleasant burden from our own press to the press of any other particular country, it would help a good deal if we could be in a position to say definitely that the statement had been taken from the press of an unnamed foreign country. Of course, if the Department should find that there is some individual or interest which has been creating difficulties by causing the publication of troublesome items, that would be extremely valuable information to lay before the Foreign Office.
Several conclusions from the interview with the Under Secretary may now be ventured, which will already have occurred to the Department. One is that Soheily, and I think the rest of the Foreign Office, must now have firmly implanted in their minds the fact that the American press is free and independent and that there is nothing our Government can do to control it. Another is that the Under Secretary himself, and possibly also the Foreign Minister, are pretty well bored with the attitude of the Shah toward the foreign press.
During the conversation the Interpreter was able to ascertain that the clipping in question had been reported, but not actually shown, to the Shah. It may reasonably be inferred, I think, that the Foreign Office lacks any desire to have the ultimatum to the effect that the Legation would be sent away if more objectionable articles should appear, carried out. Whenever possible, therefore, as in this instance, it can be counted upon to present American press matters to His Majesty in such a way that his wrath will not be rekindled.
[Page 371]I am under the impression, however, that the suspicion of the Foreign Office that some person is in back of exceptionable articles in the American press, is quite sincere.
Respectfully yours,