Coll 28/65 ‘Persia. Perso-Soviet Commercial Relations.’ [‎237r] (474/482)

THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF HIS BRITANNIC MAJESTY’S GOVERNMENT
PERSIA
CONFIDENTIAL.
No. 1 . I IS ^ ^ i
[E 611/21/34 j
Mr. Hour? to Sir John Simon.—(Received January 31.)
(No. 11.)
Sir,
Tehran, January 12, 1933.
WITH reference to ray telegram No. 2 of the 6th instant, 1 have the honour
to inform you that on the 22nd December the merchants of Gilan enforced a
regular boycott of the Russian trading organisations, pushing their truculence so
far as to picket the latter’s offices and prevent—not without a few broken heads—
all access to their offices. The lorries of Bureau Perse were apparently allowed
neither to leave their garage nor to enter it, the drivers being forced to dump in
the roadway the goods they had brought from the interior. The methods
employed were, it seems, after the best Hindu passive resistance precedents, men
lying down in front of the lorries so as to make it impossible for them to move.
2. This boycott was undoubtedly the culmination of the efforts which the
late Minister of Court made throughout the summer to persuade Persian
merchants in general that it would be to their advantage in the long run to show
a united front against Soviet Russia’s trade methods, which were as calamitous
to the individual merchant as they were insulting to the dignity of the State.
The members of the Iran Trading Corporation were egged on by the promise that
all commercial transactions with Soviet Russia would be centralised in their
hands should the movement prove successful. The Director of the Department of
Commerce spent the week ending the 17th December in Gilan. and he was
reported at the time to have advised the merchants to have no individual dealings
with the Russians. It is almost certain that he gave the final touch to the plans
for the boycott previously laid by Teymourtache (I hear in this connexion Yassai
received a most violently worded letter from the Russian trade representative
two days ago protesting against his recent activities in Gilan and laying the
organisation of the boycott at his door—to which Yassai has perforce given the
lie.) It is also rumoured that the police of Gilan provided some of the pickets
mentioned above on the instructions of the Tehran police headquarters; while the
local Governor, Divanbegi, a creature of Teymourtache, is said to have shown
himself rabidly anti-Russian. He has since been recalled to Tehran, but I am
unaware whether for consultation or as a sacrifice to Russian wrath.
3. According to a source which should be reliable, the Russian reaction took
the form of three ultimata, which were delivered on the 1st January :—
(a) The agent of the Russian trade representative in Gilan was ordered to
inform the Governor that if the boycott was not called off before the
5th January all Russian trade organisations in Gilan would be closed
forthwith and the personnel sent back to Russia.
(b) Yassai was informed that all Russian purchases would cease if the boy
cott continued.
(c) The chief of the Tehran Municipality, who is also Comptroller-General
to the Shah, was informed that in view of the transport difficulties
resulting from the boycott there would be no ship available to
transport the rice which the Russians had hitherto agreed to buy from
His Majesty—one understands the whole of his substantial crop, while
no other Persian rice of this year’s output has been bought in Gilan
or Mazanderan up to now, to the intense distress of these two
provinces.
4. The third ultimatum, if it can be called that, was withdrawn at the last
moment “ so as not to embitter the conflict.” the Russians realising perfectly well
that the threat would already have produced its effect.
5. The boycott, it will be noted, took place in spite of the Minister of
Court’s dismissal—probably because nobody had thought of altering or delaying
[691 hh—6]