Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, The Near and Middle East, Volume IX, Part 2

780.022/5–2154: Telegram

No. 1563
The Secretary of State to the Embassy in the United Kingdom¹

secret

Washington, May 22, 1954—1:55 p.m.

6277. Embtel 5270.² Department concurs in desirability exploring Buraimi situation with Hafiz Wahba and authorizes Embassy inform him:

1. We continue to believe British February 15 proposals³ on whole constitute conciliatory gesture and step in right direction.

2. We have expressed to British our hope their oil operations would cease during summer and that arbitration agreement would be concluded and some progress in arbitration made in next few months.

3. We do not believe it would be helpful Aramco enter disputed area. We have so informed Aramco and also informing British our views.

Department believes Embassy should at same time make approach to Foreign Office, on level higher than Head Eastern Department along following lines:

1. SAG has intimated to Aramco its wish it enter disputed area and Department believes formal request from King may be imminent.⁴

2. Department has told Aramco it believes such move now would be unhelpful and we hope delaying tactics can be employed. However, if formal request received it is almost certain Aramco will feel impelled to comply and USG’s objections are unlikely to restrain Aramco.

3. This situation can be averted by British decision suspend oil operations during summer when such activity normally ceases in Arabia. Such decision need not prejudice British rights in any manner and if taken would effectively preclude Aramco entry into disputed area.

4. With improvement in atmosphere following suspension we feel arbitration agreement could be concluded and some progress toward arbitration be made.

5. Situation being discussed with Wahba along lines indicated above.

Should HMG refuse to consider requesting British companies suspend operations for summer we would hope British parties in disputed area would be instructed avoid taking any step which might produce incident in event Aramco parties also enter disputed area. As we have reason believe any Aramco entry into disputed area would be at point remote from area British operations and probably be of a few days duration we feel British parties should ignore presence Aramco. Furthermore, should entry take place we believe it possible arrange via Aramco that Saudi guards accompanying Aramco party be unarmed and in such event we would hope British parties would likewise be unarmed.⁵

Dulles

1. Drafted by Fritzlan and cleared by NEA. Repeated to Jidda and Dhahran.
2. Dated May 21, not printed. The Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the United Kingdom informed an Embassy officer that all of the Feb. 15 proposals of the British regarding arbitration were acceptable to the Saudi Arabian Government except for the continuing operation of British oil companies in the disputed area. and Saudi Arabia felt that if the British continued to operate in the area Aramco should move in there also. Wahba said, however, Saudi Arabia would be greatly influenced by the advice of the U.S. Government, and wanted to know if it would recommend that Saudi Arabia allow the British to continue their operations. The Embassy asked for advice for its reply. The Ambassador suggested the Embassy inform him it did not see any present prospect of British withdrawal and in the circumstances considered it unwise for Aramco to enter the disputed area. (780.022/5–2154)
3. See Document 1543.
4. On May 20, the Chairman of the Board of Aramco wrote to the Secretary of State and informed him the company was expecting the Saudi Arabian Government to request it to begin operations in the disputed territory, and the company would feel that it had to comply with an official request of the Government. He informed the Secretary, however, that the work party would be instructed to wait at least 5 days before entering the area, in order to give the Department of State additional time to help both sides find a way to settle the dispute. (886A.2553/5–2054)

5. At 2:37 p.m. on the same day the Department of State received telegram 184 from Dhahran, May 22, not printed. It informed the Department that Aramco had received a confirmed request from the Saudi Arabian Government on that date to send its work parties into the disputed area. The Consulate General did not know if Saudi Arabian military guards would go with the party, but expected them to do so. (886A.2553/5–2254)

   Telegram 200 to Dhahran, sent at 1:33 a.m., May 23, not printed, repeated as 6285 to London and 327 to Jidda, instructed the Consulate General to seek a delay of at least 5 days in the departure of the Aramco party. It also requested the Embassy in London to act on telegram 6277 with all possible speed. (780.022/5–2354)