Foreign Relations of the United States, 1948, The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Volume V, Part 1

890.0145/11–148: Telegram

The Acting Secretary of State to the Embassy in lran

secret

Washington, November 1, 1948—3 p. m.

1025. Exposition your views re timetable median line project given full weight by Dept in subsequent discussion with Brit FonOff info reported urtels 1207, Oct. 19 and 1216, Oct. 20¹ reflects successive stages earlier US–UK thinking Wash. Final decision not yet reached but Dept contending info should be given Iran almost simultaneously with advice to SAG, with expectation proclamations by other states, if any, will lag sufficiently behind expected SAG announcement to avoid giving unjustified appearance of US–UK coercion and rather reflect true situation of others following SAG precedent.

Ref final sentence urtel 1207: Only “proceedings” contemplated are US and UK giving advice SAG upon request and UK, as protecting power, advising Sheikhdoms. There will be no affirmative attempt by US–UK to write score for concert all Persian Gulf States. If other Persian Gulf States choose to view SAG proclamation as attractive precedent, result would be equitable acquisition new rights by them; if not, they will lose no present or prospective rights.

Conditioned upon final UK agreement, following procedure presently planned by Dept vis-à-vis Iran:

(1) Few days after parallel US–UK advice SAG, and following UK advice Sheikhdoms, you would inform Iranian authorities (including Shah, in your discretion) US oil companies have shown active interest in Persian Gulf concessions offshore Saudi Arabia and King Arabia requested US advice, which had been given few days previously and expected might soon eventuate in proclamation declaring seabed and subsoil beneath Persian Gulf contiguous to territorial waters Saudi Arabia and extending to median line bisecting Gulf, as subject to exclusive jurisdiction and control SAG. In view interest UK companies in oil concessions offshore Saudi Arabia and Sheikhdoms, as well as informal SAG request for UK advice, UK had consulted US and draft proclamation recommended SAG represented agreed views two Govts. Brit understood to be offering similar advice Persian Gulf Sheikhdoms in special treaty relation with UK, and it understood Sheikhdoms are considering issuing similar proclamation. Additional motivation US–UK advice SAG and Sheikhdoms is mutual interest orderly and peaceful development resources Persian Gulf. Your approach Iran simultaneous with US–UK info Iraq, would be solely purposes their info as littoral state Persian Gulf.

(2) You would explain proposed proclamation based upon established international practice initiated by US proclamation Sept, 25, 1945, in which US asserted jurisdiction and control over natural resources continental shelf, that is, out to 100 fathom line. Entire Persian Gulf is less than 100 fathoms deep.

(3) Purpose SAG proclaiming draft principles at this time is to insure practical and equitable demarcation its national jurisdiction, creating responsible legal regime covering contiguous subsea area beyond territorial waters susceptible of exploitation natural resources.

(4) Should complaint arise at your failure inform Iran-earlier you would say our study this question made on specific request Ibn baud and we were obligated reply to him before informing other states who had not requested advice.

(5) You would emphasize present rights to mainland, islands, territorial waters, and high seas would not in any way be changed. Should Iranian authorities appear concerned lest proclamation by SAG and Sheikhdoms in any way affect Iranian claim Bahrein, you should state that Iranian claim to Bahrein would be neither more valid nor less valid after issuance proposed proclamation by SAG and Sheikhdoms, since rights over land areas and territorial waters in no way affected by assertion rights over seabed outside territorial waters. If Iranians persist in raising objection based upon Bahrein, you should inform them US considers Iranian claim legally untenable and its assertion politically ill-advised, and should Iran insist upon actively advancing such claim, US would feel obliged energetically to oppose it.

(6) Should Iranians request your advice upon possible desirability their issuing similar proclamation, you would state US feels principles SAG proclamation equally valid and equitable if applied by any or all Persian Gulf littoral states. Decision is within exclusive competence each littoral state.

(7) Lest Iranians misinterpret statement above (Para 6) as indication selfish designs US offshore Iran, you would, in your discretion, say our advice to SAG obviously not motivated by self-interest in Iranian concession since, as Iranians know, we scrupulously respect laws of Dec. 1944 and Oct. 1947 forbidding new foreign oil concessions. No American company is seeking oil rights in Iran or in subsea area off Iranian coast.

Above procedure would, in our view, meet possibly adverse reaction anticipated urtels 1207 and 1216. Please comment soonest.²

Lovett

1. No. 1216, not printed; but see footnote 1, p. 50.
2. Ambassador Wiley replied, on November 5, that “Although I consider procedure for median line project outlined Deptel 1025, November 1, as carefully designed to minimize possibility adverse Iranian reaction (Embtel 1207, October 19 and 1216, October 20) I remain apprehensive over consequences this project”. The Ambassador suggested deferment of action until his imminent return to Washington for consultation (telegram 1271 from Tehran, 890.0145/11–548).

   Telegram 1025 was repeated to London.