What Were The Details of the Traety between SA and the USA (1943?)

[ralph124c]

President roosevelt met King Ibn Saud in 1943?), aboard a USN ship. The two worked aout a deal, whereby the USA would protect SA’s sovereignty…in return, the Saudis would undertake to insure an uninterrupted supply of oil. My question: was this a formal treaty (voted on the Congress)? and, is it still in place?

[Tom_Tildrum]

In 1943, the US extended the Lend-Lease program to cover Saudi Arabia. Perhaps that’s what you’re thinking of?

[Little_Nemo]

It seems unlikely. The Saudis were just entering the oil business during WWII. The United States was producing significantly more oil than Saudi Arabia and would continue to do so throughout the fifties.

[Amateur_Barbarian]

There were many reasons besides oil to make friends in the formerly British/French(?) controlled middle east. I would be surprised if oil futures were even slightly on FDR’s radar.

That the US had essentially unlimited oil in the 1940s was a key part of our contribution to WWII, both for production and fueling ships, planes, tanks and other vehicles. Unless I’m misremembering, pretty much everyone else had shortages due to enemy control of the fields, destroyed transport and refining capabilities, or both.

[Boyo_Jim]

Here is an except from the wiki page on US SA relations.

… However, as World War II progressed, the United States began to believe that Saudi oil was of strategic importance. As a result, in the interest of national security, the U.S. began to push for greater control over the CASOC concession. On 16 February 1943, President Franklin D. Roosevelt declared that “the defense of Saudi Arabia is vital to the defense of the United States”, thereby making possible the extension of the Lend-Lease program to the kingdom. Later that year, the president approved the creation of the state-owned Petroleum Reserves Corporation, with the intent that it purchase all the stock of CASOC and thus gain control of Saudi oil reserves in the region. However, the plan was met by opposition, and ultimately failed. Roosevelt continued to court the government, however—on 14 February 1945, he met with King Ibn Saud aboard the USS Quincy, discussing topics such as the countries’ security relationship and the creation of a Jewish country in the Mandate of Palestine.
…

[Amateur_Barbarian]

Okay, I’m surprised.

But I suspect that last line contains more of the meat than the rest…

[ralph124c]

Interesting…the fact that ibn saud could make decisions alone is amazing. of course, in a monarchy, this is possible. i wonder if Ibn Saud ever thought that the formation of the State of Israel would ever lead to the conflict we see today. I suspect that he was not anti-Jewish, he probably had no interest one way or the other.

[Boyo_Jim]

In 1948 SA and Israel fought a war, well, SA was one of a number of Arab countries in the war.

[OldGuy]

“However, as World War II progressed, the United States began to believe that Saudi oil was of strategic importance.”
That could well mean it was important for the U.S. to keep the Axis from getting access to the Saudi oil rather than important for getting the oil itself.

[Schnitte]

@ralph124c

the fact that ibn saud could make decisions alone is amazing. of course, in a monarchy, this is possible.

That may be true for an absolute monarchy (which Saudi Arabia, unlike most existing monarchies, is), but not for all monarchies in general. The British Queen certainly couldn’t make the decision of concluding a treaty alone.

[Little_Nemo]

@Amateur_Barbarian

Okay, I’m surprised.

But I suspect that last line contains more of the meat than the rest…

@ralph124c

Interesting…the fact that ibn saud could make decisions alone is amazing. of course, in a monarchy, this is possible. i wonder if Ibn Saud ever thought that the formation of the State of Israel would ever lead to the conflict we see today. I suspect that he was not anti-Jewish, he probably had no interest one way or the other.

The Wiki page just says that they discussed the possibility of a Jewish state in Palestine. What the article doesn’t mention is that Ibn Saud told Roosevelt he was completely opposed to the idea.

Ibn Saud was horrified: he predicted a “holy war” and “no end of trouble.” Arabs and Jews “could never cooperate, neither in Palestine, nor in any other country…Arabs would choose to die rather than yield their land to the Jews.”

Six Months in 1945: From World War to Cold War - Michael Dobbs

[Dewey_Finn]

@Little_Nemo

It seems unlikely. The Saudis were just entering the oil business during WWII. The United States was producing significantly more oil than Saudi Arabia and would continue to do so throughout the fifties.

Wasn’t it ARAMCO and not the Saudis which controlled the oil fields?

[ralph124c]

@Dewey_Finn

Wasn’t it ARAMCO and not the Saudis which controlled the oil fields?

ARAMCO was originally a corporation jointly owned by SOCAL and the SA Government. In 1982, SA bought out SOCAL, and now ARAMCO is 100% owned by SA.

[Dewey_Finn]

your OP says that in this meeting in 1943, “the Saudis would undertake to insure an uninterrupted supply of oil.” My point is the Saudis didn’t control the oil at that time.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@OldGuy

That could well mean it was important for the U.S. to keep the Axis from getting access to the Saudi oil rather than important for getting the oil itself.

It was probably more that the UK was dependent on Saudi oil. North Sea oil drilling did not begin in earnest until 1975, and the UK (perhaps surprisingly to Americans) was more dependent on Middle Eastern oil supplies than the US until North Sea production began. This explains the UK’s greater affinity with the Arab states during the second half of the 20th century, while the US was tied to Israel.