File 1187/1914 Pt 2 ‘Persia – Policy. British Interests in the South. Russian Policy’ [‎162r] (71/300)

CONFIDENTIAL
RUSSIA
Sir G. Buchanan to Sir Edward Grey —(Received January 12, 4‘5 a.m.)
Petroyrad, January 11, 1915.
(No> \ (January 11, 9-20 p.m.)
V MINISTER for Foreign Affairs came to see me yesterday to talk about Persia.
His Excellency, who seemed greatly depressed, commenced by saying that were it
not for the war he would place his resignation into the Emperor’s hands as the only
means of escaping from impossible situation. He attached even greater value to close
relations with England than with France, and all his personal feelings prevented his
nursuing a policy" contrary to ours. He could not, however, march m line with us if
we continued to regard Russia with inveterate suspicion. We refused to recognise
her vested rights and interests in North Persia, and, forgetful of process by which we
had acquired our Empire in Asia, we opposed the slightest extension of Russian
influence for fear of it bringing her nearer India. He had often enough been told
what Russia might not do, but he would like to know what we would allow her to do
and what was the definite policy of His Majesty’s Government m Persia. Natural
deduction to be drawn from creation of spheres of influence m 190/ was that neither
of us was entitled to interfere with what the other did in his sphere, but we had never
observed this rule. If we thought our sphere too small he would let us extend it, and
partition of neutral sphere was, in his opinion, the most practical solution. ^ were
opposed to this owing to our mistrust of Russia and to fear of anything m the shape
a coterminous frontier. , , . . ,
I said it was but natural that we as an island kingdom should not desire to
see India limitrophe with any Great Power, however friendly our feelings for that
Power might be. We had even objected to being connected with France by a channel
tunnel. Statesmen had to look ahead, and we should have to provide for defences o
India even were it our friend and ally who was India s next^oor neighbour B
was not fear of bringing Russia nearer to India, but the fact t a y _
your signature to an agreement under which Persian integrity anc in p , ,
to be maintained that made you unwilling to adopt a course a vou ^ t
first step towards the partition of Persia. We did not dispute Russia s predommant
position in North Persia, and if she would only respect iegitimate susceptibditi^ o^
Persian Government, Russia’s interests there could be amp y sa eg
word of complaint on our part. When the time came for revision ^ define
ment we ought, instead of embarking on a policy of parti ron, neutral
more precisely our respective rights and obligations bot i m oui
SPh Teferring to the next complaint his Excellency has recently made aW Ae
Persian Government, I said that latter, in asking Russian overn . , honest
their troops, had not been prompted by any hostile feeling o u ’ Russian
desire to prevent Turkish advance into Persia, which had since a „ P . t j ie
military authorities seemed to have so ignored real situation a , was j n
preceding evening the acting military attache had been informe
"^HTExcellency admitted that he himself had not kept accurately^ormed
of the intentions of military authorities, and stated that t ere < declined
orders and counter-orders sent to general in command at Tabriz He Oeclmea
altogether to accept my defence of conduct of Persian Om emm i , j sav they were
of persistently pursuing an anti-Russian policy, m which e + re '» , savin «■ that
encouraged bv His Majesty’s Legation. I denied this latter ^^ement sa^ym^Uiat
support which Sir W. Townley had given to request for withdrawal of R P
had been fully justified by what had taken place since.
[121—407j