761.91/11–1544: Telegram
The Ambassador in Iran (Morris) to the Secretary of State
[Received November 17—1:20 a.m.]
847. On instructions from Foreign Minister Eden British Ambassador presented oral protest to Russian Ambassador Maximov stating Russian action in holding up and suppressing Iranian Government [Page 473] telegrams was in direct violation of agreement entered into by Great Britain and Soviet Union with Iranian Government. Maximov replied Russian censor here acted on instructions of Russian military authorities in Iran whose action was motivated by their own estimation that Iran had become hostile to Russia. Russian Ambassador appeared completely embarrassed and quickly passed responsibility to Vice Commissar Kavtaradze. He said he would take up matter with Commissar who would answer in name of Foreign Commissar Molotov. British Ambassador has not yet received a reply to his démarche which took place day before yesterday. He believes and so do I that matter has been referred to Moscow to determine nature of reply.
In view of his having received instructions to protest formally the Russian censorship action Bullard did not believe that a tripartite talk would be of utility or appropriate at present time as suggested in Department’s telegram No. 666, November 7. Nevertheless I decided to take up matter with Russian Ambassador myself. I had a long conversation with him this morning: I took attitude I was acting on my own initiative to express in friendly fashion my view that it was not helpful to Russia’s own interest to have censored press despatches intended to be sent to the great American news agencies by our local correspondents. I said this step not unnaturally aroused some misgiving in American press and through the press, in the public, as to the nature and intent of Russian actions in Iran. I expressed feeling that if American news agencies had been allowed to carry reports of their own correspondents in American press simultaneously with what came out from Moscow that the Russian position and the thesis on which it was built would have been better presented. I expanded this general theme considerably and rather insistently.
I believe my colleague was somewhat impressed by the argument. He defended Russian position, however, by counter stroke; he asserted in all the [Millspaugh?] controversy [nothing?] had appeared in Russian press detr[imental] to American financial mission. He said he was responsible for this attitude. He further said the Russian press had carried nothing about negotiations between Anglo-American petroleum companies and Iranian Government prior to arrival of Russian official delegation here. He put forward thought that right manner for tripartite understanding on matters of this nature in Iran was for each member nation to refrain from any comment upon actions of other members in respect to negotiations or undertakings with Iranian Government as long as matter at hand concerned only Iranian Government and one of tripartite members. I answered that his course might have tendency to keep from the public legitimate [Page 474] news of world interest and in the end would not serve interests of powers concerned or of Iran itself. Maximov did not insist very far on this theme.
The upshot of our conversation was that Maximov has agreed to review personally with me any future case where an American press correspondent has his material withheld by Russian military censor. Whether this arrangement will have any value only a test can show. I have instructed our correspondents here to submit to Embassy at once any case in point.
When Russian Embassy reply is given to British Ambassador I will forward it to Department.
Repeated to Moscow and London.