Coll 28/103 ‘Persia. Perso Russian Relations’ [‎46r] (91/190)

Copy
TNC/593A4.
Subject: Condeninbtions
of British Publications.
Anglo-Soviet-Persian Censorship,
(British Section),
Office of Joint Jirector,
—- —- TEHBRAl'I.
I': 1’: ' ' S*
" ~ 30tb June, 19M+*
'A - ■ 3 h- :
SECRET.
\ ;
! n ./1 /
1. ThaiLv you for yourMtt£/0^/4Uv-af>-;^8th June giving additional
points for discussion vith the- Soviet Joint Director Colonel
Asadurov on this subject.
2. Following a complaint by a British resident (Dr. II. Muster
of the Imperial Banxv of Iran - already known to you as a critic
of Censorship) alleging that Censorship had extracted two books
from a parcel, I interviewed Colonel Asadurov on June.27th and
after a re-examination of the books in question which the Soviet
Section had condemned, they were released.
3 . At the same interview I informed the Colonel of the various
irregularities detailed in Tl\ f C/562/44 of 26th June and which I
attributed to his sorters:- I mentioned that a report had been
sent to you. He gave prompt instructions' to his Sorting Section
to improve matters.
+ - — - — ~ • ’
4 . He considered the request was reasonable that British
publications exported under Censorship Permits to British Companies
ana Residents in Persia should invariably be released^ and is
passing this on to Moscow. He is also referring to Moscow the
question of the disposal of condemned publications; he
favours the return to sender through the British Section of any
publications condemned by the‘Soviet Section.
5 . The Russians base their justification for. the destruction
of items they condemn on a Russian text dated l?th February,
1942, headed "Regulations regarding procedure for dealing with
correspondence by the Joint Soviet-Anglo- ‘ersian Censorship".
A translation of the relevant Section is:- "Confiscated letters
will be kept for one month and will then be destroyed after the
completion of a record by the Section\which first confiscated
them".
The Russian word used for "letters" cannot apply to any
other type of postal article, but as the regulations seem to
be for the internal use of th.e Soviet Section they can presumably
interpret them as they like In disposing of items they condemn -
since the-section condemning an article has it for disposal.
I do not therefore see how we can insist on the Soviet Section
observing-Sectioh lol (i) of British Censorship Regulations 1938
in the absence of any previous joint agreement concerning the
custody and disposal of condemned articles.
6. The Soviet Joint Director argued that the publications
he condemned would be allowed w into Russia and thac the Soviet #
objection to them in Persia was purely a local one based on the
effect they would have on the minus of Persian readers.
Consequently if_they were not destroyed he preferred them # to
be returned to senders through the British Section rather than
be kept for delivery to the addressees after the Mar as the
latter way would merely be delaying the ill ei 1 eo'f complained
about.
?. If my contention in the last section of paragraph ( 5 )
above is correct it would be better for British publishers to have
their parcels returned to them as ‘in a-number of cases they consign.
» books ta the Imperial Bank for delivery to Persian clients against
payment of the value. It is unlikely that the P rsianswpula nay
If the goods are' detained till after the Jar ana a lots would* 0 ^
incurred by the British publisher&.
he Director, - ' 8./
Censorship,
10, Sharia , Tolumbat, Cairo*