780.022/3–2354
No. 1554
Memorandum of Conversation, by the
Officer in Charge of Arabian Peninsula-Iraq Affairs (Fritzlan)
Subject:
- Buraimi Dispute: Aramco’s Position
Participants:
- Mr. Davies, Chairman of Board of Aramco
- Mr. Spurlock, of Aramco
- Mr. Chapman, of Aramco
- NEA—Mr. Byroade
- NE—Mr. Fritzlan
Mr. Davies and his associates called in order to ascertain the Department’s latest thinking on this subject.
Mr. Davies repeated his great concern over the situation in the light of Mr. Ohliger’s talks with King Saud which revealed serious misgivings on the part of the King as regards United States leadership, etc. (Jidda’s telegram 392 of March 151). Mr. Davies felt that it was important for the Department to back up Aramco fully and to take steps to test the good faith of the British in making their [Page 2594] recent proposals. He felt strongly that the Buraimi dispute should be settled on the basis of tribal loyalties and affiliations rather than economics.
Mr. Byroade explained that when the British revealed their proposals to us we had considered their offer to make substantial concessions to the Saudis in the form of agreement to troop and control post withdrawal to be a very welcome development, and our understanding at that time of Aramco’s position concerning its interest in the disputed areas made us believe that the third proposal would meet with Aramco’s approval. We now understood Aramco’s position and naturally it was our desire to help to the extent possible. However, we were interested primarily in getting this trouble some boundary dispute settled. Mr. Byroade wondered how important the disputed area was to Aramco and asked if their objection to the third British proposal was based on the likelihood of oil existing in the region.
Mr. Davies expressed the view that agreement by Aramco to relinquish a portion of its concession area in the Trucial Coast region would be the beginning of efforts by various groups to make serious inroads upon Aramco’s whole concession territory, much of which adjoined disputed boundaries. He added that Aramco’s opposition to the British proposal was also taken in the light of recent discovery of oil in the region. Mr. Spurlock felt that the opposition of the Saudi Government to the British proposals was grounds for the United States to oppose them. Such action would serve a useful purpose in indicating that the United States was willing to take an independent course and stand up to the British. Mr. Fritzlan questioned whether abandoning our policy of acting as honest broker without identifying ourselves with either side would contribute to settlement of the dispute.
Mr. Byroade reiterated our paramount desire to reach a settlement without of course sacrificing United States interests, and asked Mr. Davies for suggestions as to the course we should take.
Mr. Davies replied that in the opinion of the Company we should press the British to suspend their oil operations in the area pending arbitration. Such action would demonstrate good faith on their part.
Mr. Byroade said he understood these operations had been going on for some time and a great deal of money had been spent. He wondered if it would be an expensive matter to suspend operations and leave the area. Mr. Davies thought not, since it was only a matter of removing a few tents and other light equipment.
Mr. Byroade inquired if Mr. Davies thought well of the idea of an arrangement whereby both Aramco and IPC were allowed to operate in the area on the understanding that concessions would be determined [Page 2595] by the arbitration award and each side would withdraw from the other side’s territory.
There was some discussion of this point and various practical difficulties were mentioned. However, Mr. Davies made it clear that if the Saudi Arabian Government asked Aramco to enter the disputed area it would be obliged to do so. He also made clear his belief that a far better arrangement would be for the British to withdraw and for neither party to enter the disputed area until completion of arbitration. Mr. Davies and his associates expressed surprise that the British had taken the stand that continuation of their operations in the disputed area was an “absolute must” as far as their proposals were concerned.
Mr. Byroade stated we would study the matter further and hoped to be able to make certain suggestions to the Foreign Office through our Embassy in London. He assured Mr. Davies, who leaves tomorrow for Saudi Arabia, that the Department, in seeking to further the chances of settling this matter, will do everything it properly can to protect Aramco’s interests.
- Not printed, but see footnote 2, Document 1551.↩