'Military report on Tehran and adjacent Provinces of North-West Persia (including the Caspian Littoral)' [‎12v] (29/610)

Bandar-i-Abbas through Kirman, Birjand and Gazik to the
Afghan frontier near Gazik. The boundary towns mentioned
were included in the Russian and British zones respectively and
the Neutral zone lay between them.
Russia and Great Britain each undertook not to seek con
cessions, or to support their nationals seeking concessions within
the zone of the other power and to consult each other concerning
concessions in the intermediate “ neutral ” zone.
In order to allay the suspicion and apprehension aroused in
Persia, that this Convention amounted to a partition of the
country, in September 19 )7 the British Minister in Tehran con
veyed an assurance to the Persian Government concerning
British and Russian intentions, including a clause :—“ Not only
do they not wish to have at hand any excuse for intervention,
but their object in these friendly negotiations was not to .allow
one another to interfere on the pretext of safe-guarding their
interests.”
The Convention from the British point of view contained more
‘give’ 1 than ‘take’. Russian sincerity was doubtful, and
a considerable party 2 at any rate in Russia was aiming at the
“ absorption of the whole of Persia without participation under
her exclusive control.” This was the policy engrained in the
consuls and other Russian employes in the country. Frequent
ly they disobeyed the Russian Legation in actions which were
inconsistent with the Convention. The Russian official policy
however, underwent a modification and a truce was imposed
on the diplomatic struggle. The Convention was partially
successful in curtailing Russian activities in Central and Southern
Persia, and checking Anglo-Russian rivalry, but Russia conti
nued to exert pressure on the 'Tehran Government, and to 3
interfere to an increasing extent in Northern Persia. The most
flagrant violations of the spirit of the Convention were the
Shuster Bpisode Russian ultimatums of 1911 and the dismissal of Mr. Shuster,
damaging an American engaged by the Persian Government as financial
influence* 1 adviser who had gained the support of the Majlis and was striv
ing to evolve order out of chaos in the financial administra
tion, a deplorable highhanded action which stamped out the
only really promising move 4 towards reform initiated since
1 e. (/., Great Britain by promising to adopt a policy of non-intervention
abandoned the Persian Constitutional party and the popularity and prestige
she had gained by her support of it.
2 This military and reactionary party in Russia, although weakened by the
Russo-Japanese war, were opposed to the abandonment of a forward policy,
and to the Convention, the work of M. Isvolsky, which they were on the alert to
thwart. '
3 In violation of her pledge of non-intervention in Persia except for the
protection of Russian life and property.
4 Por a narrative of these events see para. 3 below, pages 28—31.