891.00/12–1845: Telegram
The Ambassador in Iran (Murray) to the Secretary of State
Tehran, December 18, 1945—2 p.m.
[Received 11:08 p.m.]
[Received 11:08 p.m.]
1149. I have received lengthy communication from Prime Minister25 giving official Iranian reaction to Soviet reply to US note of November 24. Brief summary follows:
- 1.
- Recent events in northern Iran most certainly do constitute an “armed uprising”. Hakimi here recites in detail record of rebel activities during past month and half.
- 2.
- The people of Azerbaijan already enjoy “democratic rights” as provided by the Iranian Constitution and the supplementary laws.
- 3.
- The “Azerbaijanian population” is not involved in the disturbance, the leader of the Democrat movement being a person unknown in Azerbaijan until 2 years ago having spent most of his life in Baku. His collaborators cannot be considered representatives of the people.
- 4.
- People of Azerbaijan have never considered Turkish their national or permanent language but merely a tongue imposed on them by the [aggressions of the Mongols.]
- 5.
- Whether the activities of the Popular Assembly at Tabriz on November 20–21 are in accordance with the Iranian Constitution Iran Government alone is competent to decide.
- 6.
- Iran Government categorically denies that the “undesirable incidents” have been caused by “reactionary elements”.
- 7.
- Insurgents have no popular support but have so terrorized populace as to make local opposition difficult. Azerbaijan population has shown its patriotism and loyalty to Central Government on numerous occasions as evidenced by rousing receptions always given arriving troops.
- 8.
- Soviet statement that Soviet military has not and is not hindering movements of Iranian military is not true. Specific incidents are cited. Note points out that if Iranian forces in Azerbaijan had enjoyed freedom of movement uprising would have been easily suppressed and Soviet interference in movement of Iranian security forces is violation of Tripartite Treaty.
- 9.
- Soviet opposition to despatch of further Iranian troops into north is violation of rights of jurisdiction of Iran, is contrary to Irano-Soviet treaty of 1921, is violation of Tripartite Treaty of 1942, and arrival of troops will not only not cause further bloodshed but will be welcomed by population. Soviet action in blocking troops is in direct contravention of pledge of Iranian integrity in Tehran Declaration.
- 10.
- Time limits for evacuation of British and Soviet troops as established by Tripartite Treaty do not mean such troops are obliged to remain in Iran until six months after end of hostilities. The spirit and purport of treaty indicate that evacuation should take place during not at end of six months period. Soviet Government’s reasoning in this is entirely contradictory to provisions of United Nations. Charter.
- 11.
- Citing of 1921 treaty providing for Soviet intervention if Iran was threatened by third power has no application in present instance and in any event such intervention was overridden subsequently by Kellogg-Briand Pact26 and entry of Soviets into League of Nations.27
- 12.
- While discussing 1921 treaty it is worth mentioning that article IV provides neither party shall intervene in internal affairs of the other.
- 13.
- In view of all above cited treaties, declarations etc. Iran Government expects its Soviet ally to act in conformity with them and to refrain from interfering in internal affairs of Iran and also to withdraw its forces from the country.
Sent Department 1149; repeated Moscow 355; London 138.
Murray
- The text of the Prime Minister’s note, dated December 14, 1945, was transmitted to the Department in despatch 247, January 25, 1946, from Tehran.↩
- Treaty between the United States and other powers for the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy, signed at Paris August 27, 1928, Foreign Relations, 1928, vol. i, p. 153.↩
- On September 18, 1934.↩