Letters and Papers Concerning the Trans-Persian Railway and Other Railways in Persia [‎209r] (417/442)

}
*
*
Persia.
681
[24 July 1912]
682
mvself abreast of all the information as it
comes to His Majesty’s Government, and
therefore 1 will do my best to reply to the
various points which have been raised by
the noble Lord. We recognise, of course,
his right to raise this subject from his
personal knowledge of the country increased
by a recent visit, and we welcome any
pieces of information which he is able to
give us either of events that are actually
happening in the country or of what he has
observed of the disposition of its people.
I understand that in spite of the criticisms
which the noble Lord has levelled at some
of the results which he understands to have
proceeded from the Russian understanding,
he would in no way desire to impair our good
relations with Russia— [Lord Lamington :
Hear, hear.]—either in Persia or in any
other part of the world, only be believes
that those good relations might be fully
maintained with a definite change of action
on the part of both Governments. [Lord
Lamington : Hear, hear.] It is, of course,
quite true that the existence of an under
standing between the two Powers, particu
larly in relation to questions so thorny as
those which arise in Persia, does not and
cannot necessarily involve a perpetual
identity of view, and it is clear from Papers
already laid on the subject that there have
been occasions in which either Russia has
remonstrated with us or we with Russia in
respect of some action of the respective
countries.
But I am particularly glad that the noble
Lord has in one respect recognised the
difficulties of the situation—a respect in
which they are often, as I think, not realised
by those who speak in public or who
write on this subject. It is sometimes the
custom to talk of Russia and the action of
Russia as though all the inhabitants of
Russia thought precisely alike on these
questions, and that there was only one set
of views and opinions which had to be taken
into consideration. It is a common form
of error to suppose, because a country is not
governed by an Executive responsible to a
Parliament, that therefore there is no such
thing as public opinion in such a country.
Nothing can be more misleading. What
ever the form of government may be,
however despotic it may be in name or in
appearance, the rulers of a country have to
pay and do pay a close regard to public
opinion ; and, as the noble Lord has fully
recognised, there are in relation to this
question of Persia quite different schools of
thought among Russian statesmen and
Russian administrators. There is, no doubt,
a strong forward school in that country who
would be disposed, if they spoke their minds
frankly, to criticise the understanding
because it prevents the complete Russifica
tion of at any rate the northern half of
Persia. On the other hand, there is a strong
body—and in essence the strongest body,
because these are the views held by the
Russian Government—who have no desire
for an indefinite enlargement of their
responsibilities in the direction of Persia.
They do not desire to lose any influence
which they possess as the most powerful
neighbours of a weak country and as the
principal traders with that country ; but
they do not desire to undertake any more
direct control or to proceed in the direction
of occupation still less of annexation. We
are able to say with confidence that during
the whole of these difficult proceedings the
loyalty of the Russian Government and the
loyalty of the Russian Minister at Teheran,
M. Poklewsky, who is so well known to
many of us in this House, to the Convention
and all that it involves has been altogether
complete. At the same time I quite agree
that it is impossible to believe that the
action of all the agents of Russia throughout
Persia has been, so far as one is able to
judge, in conformity with the wishes of
St. Petersburg, or that it has been inspired
by a desire to maintain that independence
and integrity of Persia which the noble Lord
has rightly quoted as forming an essential
point in the understanding between the two
countries.
The noble Lord spoke of the northern part
of the Russian sphere of influence as being
“ absolutely controlled by Russia,” and he
spoke of a part of their sphere rather
further south, including the capital, Teheran,
as being, not absolutely under Russian
control, yet in a condition in which Russian
control was the only control, and he added,
I think, that the Persian Government could
not move hand or foot without the leave of
Russia. I think that is a statement which
is liable to be misunderstood, because as a
matter of fact the Russian Minister and our
successive Ministers there have worked
together, as I said just now, with absolute
loyalty. It is, of course, the case that to
both the Persian Government has made
frequent appeals for advice and assistance,
but it would not be accurate to state that
any difference has been made at Teheran as
between the responsible agents of the two