501.BC/5–2246: Telegram
The United States Representative at the United Nations (Stettinius) to the Secretary of State
223. Security Council. With the Soviet delegate absent, the Security Council at its 43rd meeting May 22,42 discussed for 90 minutes latest developments in the Iranian question and adjourned without reaching a decision. Ambassador Hussein Ala of Iran sat at the Council table, and answered questions of the delegates.
Various proposals were made, but only a Netherlands’ motion that the Council adjourn until an early date with the understanding that a meeting could be called at the request of any member was adopted. The Council remained seized with the Iranian question.
The Polish delegate, and to a lesser extent the French representative, favored removal of the Iranian question from the agenda, but the majority of the members were not satisfied that the latest report from the Iranian Prime Minister constituted a clear-cut declaration that Soviet troops had been withdrawn from the whole of Iran by May 6.
[Page 474]Mexico was represented by a new delegate, Padilla Nervo, when President Alexandre Parodi (France) called the session to order at 11:06 a.m. The provisional agenda and the Mexican delegate’s credentials were adopted without observations.
The President said that a telegram had been received from the Government of Iran which was at first understood to be concerned with the Iranian question. He was referring to a message which was later found to refer to the world food situation. He called attention to the May 20 letter of Ambassador Ala which stated that while precise information on the situation in Iran had not been received, he (Ala) concluded that conditions set by the Security Council had not been fulfilled. Chairman Parodi then asked Assistant Secretary General Sobolev to read a May 21 telegram from the Iranian Government, which pointed out that the Prime Minister of Iran had sent a commission to Azerbaijan to investigate carefully regions such as Tabriz and its suburbs, Marand, Julfa, Khoy, Salmas, Maju, Rizaiyeh and Mianduab. The Prime Minister’s message added that telegraphic reports are to the effect that no trace whatever of Soviet troops, equipment or means of transport were found, and that according to trustworthy people, who were questioned in the above-mentioned places, Soviet troops evacuated Iran on May 6th.
The British delegate wondered what proportion of the territory formerly occupied by Soviet troops was represented in the places named in the latest report and whether the report satisfied the Government of Teheran that the evacuation of Soviet troops was complete. He said he should like to know what steps the Commission took to satisfy itself and to verify that equipment and means of transport had been removed and whether reports that Soviet soldiers had been left behind in Azerbaijan in civilian clothes had been investigated.
Dr. Lange (Poland) regretted the way the whole Iranian matter had been treated by the Council, calling attention to the April 15 letter in which Iran withdrew its complaint from the Council. He thought the Iranian question had been used to create trouble and make Iran a perpetual and permanent football of big power politics. He said the latest statement of the Prime Minister of Iran closed the case effectively and was of the opinion that the question as to whether the Iranian Government was able to send its agents to Azerbaijan should be treated as an internal affair attributable to conflicts between the Province and the Central Government.
At the suggestion of Dr. Van Kleffens (Netherlands), Ambassador Ala was at this point invited to sit at the Council table. In response to questions, Ala said that in his opinion the first Iranian complaint that Soviet representatives were interfering in the internal affairs of Iran brought at the London meetings was still on the Council agenda. He stated that the Iranian complaint of March 18 concerned the [Page 475] failure of the Soviet Government to withdraw its troops on the date stipulated in the Tripartite Treaty, but that it also maintained the first complaint of interference had not ceased. He thought that the April 15 letter from the Government of Iran, which came after the Soviet Government had assured the Iranian Government that all Soviet troops would be withdrawn from Iran by May 6, and which asked that the complaint be withdrawn, dealt only with the evacuation issue. He felt that the Iranian complaint on interference had not been withdrawn.
Before calling on Mr. Stettinius, President Parodi said that he thought as President of the Council he should express regret that the first communication received in New York from the Iranian Government came without the specific orders from the Iranian Government and was shortly afterwards contradicted by the Iranian Prime Minister.
Mr. Stettinius suggested that the Council again defer action on the Iranian matter, explaining that the U.S. did not believe that the Council had sufficient basis for taking definite action. He called attention to conflicting reports on the current troubled situation in Iran and the record of the Soviet-Iranian difficulties and differences and said the U.S. would consider it most unfortunate for the Council at that time to drop the Iranian question from the list of matters of which it was seized.
The U.S. representative stated that the Soviet Government had made no report to the Council and no statement on the subject of evacuation of its troops from Iran and the Iranian Government had been unable until May 21, to report any official findings as to Azerbaijan. He described the latest Iranian report as incomplete and inconclusive, adding that it dealt with only the western portion of the Province of Azerbaijan. The presence of Soviet troops in Iranian territory has been only one of the subjects which has been a matter of controversy between the Soviet and Iranian Governments, he said.
Mr. Stettinius declared that the U.S. Government had followed developments in the Iranian question with the greatest concern and recently had considered requesting upon its own initiative an investigation by the Council of the situation in Northern Iran in order to assist the Council to determine whether the continuance of the situation there was likely to endanger international peace and security. Pie said he was not suggesting an investigation at that time, but emphasized that his Government thought it most desirable that the Council continue to remain seized of the Iranian matter, indicating thereby its continuing concern in this potentially dangerous and as yet unclarified situation.43
[Page 476]Sir Alexander Cadogan (U.K.) endorsed the U.S. suggestion, stating that the latest word from the Iranian Government was an interim report which was inconclusive. He wondered whether the Commission sent to Azerbaijan enjoyed liberty of movement and action, pointing out that its information appeared to be largely second-hand.44
Ala asserted that he believed it was long after May 6 that Soviet troops had actually been withdrawn from Azerbaijan, if they actually have been entirely evacuated. He described the latest telegraphic report from his Prime Minister as inconclusive, pointing out it did not clearly state that all troops from the whole of Azerbaijan had been withdrawn.
At this point Ala reminded President Parodi that he was bound by the time limit which had been fixed by the Council for May 20 to put in a report on that date giving what information on the evacuation of Soviet troops from Iran was at his disposal. He said he had truthfully represented the situation in his letter of May 20, but the next day he received a communication from his Government and he had submitted that also.
In answer to a series of questions from the Polish representative, Ala said that the Iranian Government was not in authority in Azerbaijan; that the lack of authority there stemmed from Soviet interference; that he knew of no interference from any other large power; and that the Iranian Government was faced with a hostile army in Azerbaijan which was created under the Soviet supervision and which will not let the regular Army of Iran into Azerbaijan. Asked by Dr. Lange how the investigating Commission got into Azerbaijan and whether the Commission made its inspection through a telescope from an airplane, Ala replied that the Commission was a temporary unit and that it presumably went into Azerbaijan with the permission of Tabriz. Ala added that the Commission traveled in a Soviet plane.
The Iranian Ambassador disclosed that the Soviet Ambassador to Iran was present during recent discussions between Prime Minister Qavam and Pishevari and that the Soviet representative urged Qavam to accept the unacceptable demands of the “insurgent” Azerbaijan group. He added this amounted to interference in Iranian internal affairs.45
[Page 477]Mr. Stettinius said that he believed more than ever after hearing Ala the Council would make a mistake if it dropped the matter and repeated his suggestion that action be deferred.
President Parodi offered a compromise proposal, providing that the Council continue the Iranian question on its agenda for a week or 10 days and, if at that time no information had been received contradicting the May 21 telegram of the Iranian Prime Minister, the matter would be dropped.
Parodi’s proposal was not acceptable to the British delegate who said that he believed a definite and conclusive statement from the Iranian Government that the evacuation had been completed was necessary before the Council could remove the issue from its agenda. Stettinius associated himself with Cadogan’s statement.
A discussion on various adjournment suggestions followed. Dr. Lange proposed that adjournment be voted with the stipulation that the Council direct a query to the Iranian Government asking it to state definitely with a yes or no answer whether the evacuation of Soviet troops from Iran had been completed. The Dutch and British delegates thought the Iranian Government was experiencing enough difficulties and such a telegram might prove embarrassing.
The Van Kleffens motion to adjourn until an early date was carried by nine votes with Dr. Lange abstaining. Following the adjournment vote, the President put the Lange proposal to dispatch a query to the Iranian Government to a vote and it was defeated when only Parodi and Lange favored sending such a telegram.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- For the official record of the proceedings of the Security Council on May 22, see SC, 1st yr., 1st ser., No. 2, pp. 287–305.↩
- For the text of Mr. Stettinius’ remarks, see SC, 1st yr., 1st ser., No. 2, p. 287.↩
- Telegram 169, May 23, noon, from Tabriz, reported that the verification by the Iranian Government “consisted of conducted tours of five or six towns in Pishevari’s car. Pishevari told correspondents today that although commission ‘have freedom to visit any part of Azerbaijan, they are of course not allowed to see any Azerbaijani military installations.’” (891.00/5–2346)↩
- In telegram 219, May 22, 6:45 p.m., Mr. Stettinius gave his opinion “that Ala had made up his mind before the meeting that this was his last chance to speak and that he could serve his country best by speaking out openly today. … In my opinion Ala has intentionally taken his political life in his hands in speaking out so courageously and openly today.” (501.BC/5–2246)↩