208. Editorial Note
After the promulgation of Law 97 in August 1967, the four countries (the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and the Netherlands) which represented the Iraq Petroleum Company’s shareholders had to decide the nature of the protest to be delivered to the Iraqi Government. The decision was complicated because the oil company partners were incorporated in four different countries and the interests of the governments were not identical. Time was also of the essence, because other countries and independent U.S. companies were interested in gaining access to Iraq’s oil resources. During a meeting with the American partners, Mobil and Standard Oil of New Jersey, on August 17, “Mr. Moses stated that he has reports from Baghdad that ENI, Sinclair, Japanese, Spanish, and Bulgarians have been in contact with NIOC.” Deputy Assistant Secretary Davies informed the oil company executives that the Department would be coordinating its actions with the British, and that “With a coordinated approach we may be able to persuade the French Government to protest also; the Dutch should be agreeable.” (Memorandum of conversation, August 17; National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Central Files, 1967–69, PET 6 IRAQ)
Concerted Western action, however, was difficult to achieve. In a meeting on August 22, a British Embassy official explained that “the Dutch are reluctant to make a protest on the ground that they need Iraqi oil and do not want their supply cut off… . Mr. Urwick also reported that the French Foreign Ministry desk level reaction to a protest was negative. He was doubtful that the reaction at higher levels would be more favorable.” (Memorandum of conversation, August 22; ibid., PET 5 IRAQ)
At another meeting 2 days later among U.S. officials including Assistant Secretary Solomon, British Embassy officials, and representatives of Mobil and Standard-NJ, it was decided that a protest was not advisable. A British official noted: “Such protest would serve to point out the difference among the four governments and might give the impression of the Americans and British ‘ganging up’ on the Iraqis. Therefore, the British Government doubts that such protests would be wise and proposes instead to submit a protest on behalf of IPC, as a British incorporated firm, but not on behalf of the British shareholder.” (Memorandum of conversation, August 24; ibid.)
On August 31 the Embassy in London informed the Department: “FonOff (Oil Department) seems believe that in view Dutch and French refusal US decision not to protest represents best course of action, in that it avoids Anglo-Saxon coloration and demonstrates that British [Page 382] note reflects views of all shareholders.” (Telegram 1557 from London, August 31; ibid., PET 6 IRAQ)