890F.6363/12–2848
Memorandum of Conversation, by Mr. Richard H. Sanger of the Division of Near Eastern Affairs
| Participants: | Mr. T. Bromley, First Secretary, British Embassy |
| Mr. Kitchen—GTI | |
| Mr. Moline—PED | |
| Mr. Sanger—NE |
Mr. Bromley said that in a further telegram from London the Foreign Office again questioned the legality of the proposed plan to assist the littoral states of the Persian Gulf in establishing their offshore boundaries in that body of water. He said that no final decision on this question was likely to be reached by the British Government for three weeks but that since the American Government is also reconsidering its position he did not feel this delay would be too serious.
Like the US, the British Government was worried over the effect of proclamations defining boundaries of the Persian Gulf littoral states on Persia. London recognized that further delay might complicate the situation in view of the activity of various oil companies but the Foreign Office felt that such complications were less undesirable than the hasty pushing forward of plans that might lead to internal political trouble in Iran, trouble which might be exploited by the Russians.
London suggested that if the US and Great Britain felt it necessary at this time to approach the littoral states of the Persian Gulf, we make the following suggestions:—
- 1.
- We feel that, while the countries involved may, if they wish, talk with interested oil companies, it would be undesirable for the time being for any of these countries to commit themselves with any particular company or to extend their boundaries into the Persian Gulf.
- 2.
- At the same time, the oil companies involved should be told not to press the littoral governments for offshore concessions until it is known how their claims fit into the proposed new boundaries.
Although not desirable at this time, the US and British Governments do not object if the oil companies make conditional agreements regarding concessions with the Persian Gulf states provided these agreements are neither formalized nor proclaimed.
Mr. Bromley said that this wire from London had crossed the Embassy’s telegram containing Ambassador Wiley’s views on the Persian Gulf offshore oil problem. Mr. Bromley ended by saying that the Embassy would appreciate the reaction of the Department to this latest telegram from London.
Mr. Bromley was told that it seemed highly doubtful that any effective influence could be exercised on whether or not concessions would be sought or granted, that perhaps the most that could be accomplished would be to keep the agreements confidential. It was indicated, though not given as a final answer, that since the London proposals concerned only a three week period, they would seem acceptable particularly as offshore negotiations did not seem likely to reach final stages in that time.