Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1946-03-17
Violation of Pact
Charged in British,
u. S. Concessions
RUSSIAN TROOP TRAINS arriving
nightly at town near Teheran.
Page A-10.
BY the Associated Press

| paper IzveStia declared today
that Northern Iran oil fields
! were of primary significance" to
Russian security, and charged
that Iran four times broke the
Soviet-Iranian treaty of 1921 by
granting to United States and
British firms oil concessions
previously held by Russia.
The government newspaper &C
cused Iran of discriminating against
Russia in oil concessions, of threat
ening Soviet security, and of seeking
to instigate conflicts between the
Soviet Union and other great
powers. The latter charge was
made in another article in Izvestia
Thursday.
Izvestia asserted that when Rus
STA, in 1914, proposed renewal of
her former oil concessions in the
north, the proposal met "raving re-
sistance from the Iranian ruling
upPCl u uoIS.
1T is not permissible" said lives
tia, ito forget about all these facts
which have serious meaning in the
development of relations between
the Soviet Union and Iran"
Threats to Security Charged.
The 1921 Treaty, it said, stipu-
lated that Iran would not give con-
cessions to foreign interests in
Northern Iran, but that Iran had
granted them to three American
and one Dutch British firm in this
area adjacent to the Southern
Soviet frontier and close to Rus
sian oil bases in Baku and Turkmen.
These concessions, said Izvestia,
were threats to Russian security.
The newspaper said the violations
OF the treaty were a concession to
Standard Oil in November, 1921; to
Sinclair Oil in December, 1928: to
Delaware Oil in January, 1887, and
to the Anglo-Dutch Co, said to be
subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell
in March, 1899.
All were cancelled later, but only
after Soviet protests, it added.
Iran, it continued, granted the
concessions on grounds she did not
have the financial and industrial
means for self development.
hut III
maneuver" exposed by the Soviet
proposal year and half ago for
concessions. These, it said, would
have given Iran great benefits and
removed "one of the serious
obstacles in the way of improving
Soviet-Iranian relations"
simultaneously, the magazine New
Times declared British and Ameri-
can "oil trusts" were waging AN
especially fierce battle for Iraq oil"
1t also asserted the Kurds living in
Iraq, neighboring Iran, had been
cruelty suppressed in attempts ito
gain respect for their national
rights"
Concessions Cited.
Izvestia cited what it said were
enormous concessions held by the
Anglo-Iran Oil Co. in Southern Iran,
and said such rights most clearly
exposed the 'inimical attitude of
the Iranian ruling circle toward the
U. S. S. R."
In view of the situation in the
south, said Izvestia, the refusal to
give the Soviet Union the right of
concession in the northern districts"
amounts to nothing other than de-
tense of a monopoly position of the
English oil concession in Iran
The official government newspa-
per declared that the 1921 treaty.
which Russians regard as the foun-
dation of Soviet-Iranian relations.
specifically said that in return for
Russians giving up rights to oil,
mines, roads and other concessions.
Iran promised not to turn them
over to ANY third state or its
citizens"
Such a condition, applied to the
concessions adjacent to Baku and
the oil districts of Soviet Turkmen,
was dictated by the security in
terests Of the Soviet Union" lives
tia said.
Declaring that British troops ''in-
tervening" against Soviet Azerbai-
jan and Turkmen in 1880, in
vaded Baku through the territory
of the former Soviet concessions.
Izvestia added:
Therefore, it is entirely natural