Foreign Relations of the United States, 1947, The Near East and Africa, Volume V

891.6363/12–847

The Iranian Prime Minister (Qavam) to the Ambassador of the Soviet Union in Iran (Sadchikov)¹

[No. 16807]

Tehran, November 23, 1947.

Acknowledging receipt of your letter of November 20, 1947 I beg you to communicate the following considerations to the Soviet Government:

I. When you declare that my reference in letter number 15531 of 13 Aban 1326 (1)^* to the law of 11 Azar 1323 (2)^† relative to the prohibition against granting concessions is not founded, it must be recalled first: the question of concessions was not taken up at all in our conversations, because in accordance with Article I of the law above mentioned, it is made clear that any negotiation concerning the granting of concessions is absolutely forbidden to the Government under penalty of sanctions; and second: the Government believed that in conformity with Article II of the law above mentioned it was authorized to enter in conversations looking toward the creation of a company for the extraction and sale of petroleum and to bring the results of such conversations to the attention of the Majlis. However, the Majlis, which alone is competent to interpret laws, declared that the point of view of the Government was contrary to the intent of the law above-mentioned and for that reason it (the Majlis) would not approve the constitution of a mixed Irano-Soviet Company and went no further in the matter.

II. It is evident that my agreement to the creation of an Irano-Soviet petroleum company was contingent upon the approval of the Chamber of Deputies, for in accordance with the constitution of Iran no engagement or treaty can have the force of law as long as it has not been approved by the Majlis and signed by His Imperial Majesty The Shahinshah.

III. In the matter of the delay in presenting to the Parliament the agreement for the constitution of a joint company it goes without saying that the officials of the Soviet Government are perfectly aware that the causes of this delay were beyond the power of the Iranian Government.

It is incontestable that elections can not be carried on in a country without security and tranquility, and Soviet Government realizes that the Government of Iran could not begin elections and subsequently assemble the Majlis in order to submit the report of the petroleum agreement before the return of the situation to normal and the reestablishment of the Government’s power in the whole country.

IV. The refusal of the Government to sign the treaty and to submit it to the Majlis, as pointed out in letter number 4500 of 20 Shahrivar 1326, (3)^‡ is based on the law of 11 Azar 1323 (2),^† which declares that the Majlis must be notified beforehand of conversations in which the Government participates.

V. The allegation of the Soviet Government that the Iranian Government, instead of submitting to the Majlis the agreement for the constitution of a company, pronounced itself against the creation of such a company is a cause of astonishment and regret, for, in conformity with the promise given, in my report of 29 Mehr 1326 (4)^§ I submitted the petroleum agreement in question accompanied by a draft law concerned with the agreement proposed by the Soviet Government.

Moreover I believed it my duty to make the necessary recommendations to the Deputies and to remind them that they should make decisions in this matter only after study and reflection. However, in spite of these specific recommendations the Majlis did not proceed with the agreement, but adopted another plan for the extraction and exploitation of petroleum in the North, which plan is mentioned in the single article law of 29 Mehr (4)^§ the substance of which was brought to the attention of the Soviet Embassy in the letter of 13 Aban 1326. (5)^║

Consequently at the same time that I protest against the declaration against [by?] the Soviet Government relative to my infidelity to my undertaking, I state that, for my part, I have in no way broken my promise but on the contrary I have acted frankly and straightforwardly in accomplishing my given word.

VI. The Iranian Government is not in agreement with the point of view of the Soviet Government when the latter declares that the nonrealization of the agreement on the creation of an Irano-Soviet Company is a flagrant discrimination against the USSR, in view of the existence of the Anglo-Iranian petroleum concession in the South; for the southern petroleum concession has existed for a considerable time, whereas the decision of the Majlis concerning the agreement of 15 Farvardin 1325 (6)^¶ is based upon a law voted 11 Azar 1323 (2)^† that the Government is responsible for executing. The best proof of the non-existence of discrimination against the Soviet Union is the law of 29 Mehr 1326 (4),^§ which prohibits the participation of all strangers and foreign companies in the extraction of petroleum in the North of Iran but which, however, authorized the Iranian Government to enter into conversations with the Soviet Government for the sale of petroleum products in the event that, after technical investigation, it becomes established that petroleum in sufficient commercial quantities exists in the northern regions of Iran.

This special provision is a proof of the friendly attitude of the Iranian Majlis and Government towards the neighboring government, which, in fact, should appreciate such a decision.

Consequently the Imperial Government of Iran considers the protest of the Soviet Government as without foundation.

Moreover in view of the declarations made by me in my report to the Parliament concerning the sincere desire of the Iranian Government and people to strengthen their long standing friendship with the Soviet Union, it is a source of astonishment and regret to hear of the hostile attitude of the Iranian Government towards the Soviet Government and to be informed that the Iranian Government will be held responsible for its attitude.

I find myself obliged to refute energetically and categorically the following sentences of your letter of November 20; “the Soviet Government declares that the unfriendly attitude of the Iranian Government towards the Soviet Union is incompatible with normal relations between the two countries and that the Government of Iran will be responsible for the consequences thereof”. On the other hand I am certain, as I stated at the end of my report to the Majlis, that the Iranian Government and people follow no discriminatory policy and adopt no unfriendly attitude towards the Government of the Soviet Union, for such a conception is condemned by logic and reason and can not arise in the spirit of any Iranian.

If only the pressure, the threats, the provocations and the unjust propaganda (such as the recent broadcasts of Radio Moscow and Radio Baku) came to an end, we could in an atmosphere of peace create reciprocal confidence.

We expect that the Soviet Government, which has sacrificed so much for the independence of peoples and the respect of their rights, will today likewise continue to treat in the same generous manner the friendly and neighboring Government of Iran, so that the unfriendly [friendly?] and sincere relations between the two countries may be increasingly strengthened and reinforced.

Please accept, Mr. Ambassador the assurances of my consideration.²

Ahmad Qavam

1. Copy transmitted to the Department by Tehran in despatch 561, December 8.
2. (1) November 5, 1947 [Footnote in the original.]
3. (2) December 2, 1944 (the so-called Mossadeq Law) [Footnote in the original.]
4. (3) September 19, 1947 [Footnote in the original.]
5. (2) December 2, 1944 (the so-called Mossadeq Law) [Footnote in the original.]
6. (4) October 22, 1947 [Footnote in the original.]
7. (4) October 22, 1947 [Footnote in the original.]
8. (5) November 5, 1947 [Footnote in the original.]
9. (6) April 4, 1946 [Footnote in the original.]
10. (2) December 2, 1944 (the so-called Mossadeq Law) [Footnote in the original.]
11. (4) October 22, 1947 [Footnote in the original.]
2. In telegram 1162, November 26, from Tehran, Ambassador Allen advised that Prime Minister Qavam had raised a question with him as to whether he should report the situation to the United Nations. The Ambassador’s reply was that “publication of Soviet note of November 20 together with his reply made public yesterday would serve to inform world opinion regarding situation and that no formal communication to UN seemed called for at present” (761.91/11–2647)

   Then, in the next numbered telegram the same day, the Ambassador gave his opinion that the Iranian reply to the Soviet letter contributed little to the battle of words over the oil question. He suggested, however, that the reply was noteworthy, for two reasons: “first, it was prompt, in sharp contrast to reaction of Soviets who had taken month to declare their attitude following Majlis refusal of their oil proposals; and second. It was strongly worded rejection of Soviet protest that Iranians had acted in unfriendly and discriminatory manner toward USSR.” (891.6363/11–2647)