File 2249/1915 Pt 4 ‘Oil: Mesopotamia & Persia. (General File) 1920–24’ [‎48v] (96/484)

o
tK a
riuhts, and could only become effective if its application conformed to the desires and
laws of the countries concerned. , e
18. The acquisition hy the French Government under the agreement ot a certain
interest in the Mesopotamian oilfields represents the allotment to the French Govern
ment of the former German interests in the Turkish Petroleum Company m return for
facilities by which Mesopotamian oil will be able to reach the Mediterranean. Th
agreement may therefore be said to be the adaptation of pre-wai arrangements t>
existing conditions, and in this respect His Majesty’s^ Government, far from acting
any selfish or monopolistic spirit, may reasonably claim to have consulted the best
interests of the future Arab State. Neither the rights of the Turkish Petroleum
Company nor the provisions of the San Remo Oil Agreement will preclude the Arab
State from enjoying the full benefit of ownership or from prescribing the conditions on
which the oilfields shall be developed.
19 I have not failed to observe the large amount of public attention directed to
the reported resources of Mesopotamia, which, Mr. Colby states, furnish a peculiarly
critical test of the good faith of the nations which have given their adherence to the
mandate principle. Apart from the fact that these resources are as yet entirely
improved, I can discern nothing in this principle which compels the mandatory Power
to discriminate against its own nationals, who, after years of arduous negotiation,
secured certain rights, and would, but for the war, have long since been actively at
work, in order to afford an equal opportunity to other groups which before the war
were not actively concerned in the petroleum resources of Mesopotamia.
20 . I have noted with interest the allusions which Mr. Colby makes to the estimates
which have been framed of the distribution of the petroleum resources of the world.
While I agree that such calculations are of subsidiary importance in this discussion, !
think it desirable that they should be placed in the proper perspective. It is stated in
Mr. Colby’s note that the United States possesses only one-twelfth approximately of
the world’s petroleum resources, but I may be permitted to point out that in 1919 the
chief geologist of the United States Geological Survey stated that “ the criteria on
which such estimates can be based vary in every degree of inadequacy in the different
regions,” and he was then referring to estimates dealing with the United States only,
and was not taking into account the infinitely more problematical resources of countries
still partially or wholly unexplored, from a geological standpoint.
21. My object in referring to this aspect of the question in a previous iiote was to
show that the United States controls a home production of petroleum which, whether
it is about to reach its maximum point or n<-t is actually and potentially vast, while in
neighbouring countries it possesses a predominant interest in oil-bearing regions ofi
exceptional promise. The United States Government will doubtless agree that this’
statement of the existing situation admits of no dispute.
22 . I do not feel that the economic differences which, according to Mr. Colby’s
suggestion, the mandate principle was especially designed to remove, will be satisfactorily
composed if the United States not only insists in still further extending its control of a
commodity in which it already enjoys a predominant position to the resources of
mandated territories, but even implies that the binding obligations entered into by the
former Government of those territories should be disregarded.
V
23. His Majesty’s Government are, nevertheless, glad to find themselves in general
J * J U „ T •. 4- .. H O 4- 4- /-»r'* /U- w'v F 4- U o 4- 4- T-i x-r-r / /-U n /xi I
~ ^ .) 7 ~ ~ ' C CJ>
agreement with the contention of the United States Government, that the world’s oil
resources should be thrown open for development without reference to nationality. I
infer,-however, from article 1 of the Act of the Philippine Legislature of the Sjst
August, 1920, which confines participation in the working of* all public lands containirg
petroleum and other mineral oils and gas^o citizens or corporations of the United
States, of the Philippines, that the United States Government considers that this
principle is one which admits of exceptions. In this connection I observe that
Mr. Colby does not attempt to refute the statements contained in my note of the 9th
August last concerning the action taken by the United States Government to prevent
the exploitation by British interests of such resources in Hayti and Costa^Rica.
24. In your Excellency’s note of the 28th July the attention of His Majesty’s
Government was called to the existence of reports to the effect that the officials charged
with the administration of Tanganyika territory have accorded privileges to British
nationals that have not been accorded to the nationals of other countries. In my reply
of the 9th August I requested that particulars might be given of the charge thus made.
As the matter is not referred to in Mr. Colby’s note of the 20th November, I presume
that no evidence in its support can be produced, and in these circumstances I might
perhaps have hoped that the charge w T ould have been expressly withdrawn.
InU
Hi, t St