811.7490F/2–1945: Telegram

The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Winant) to the Secretary of State

1726. A reply has been received from the Foreign Office commenting as follows on the Embassy’s recent representations regarding radiotelegraph communications in Saudi Arabia in accordance with Department’s telegram No. 789, February 1, midnight:

1.
The Foreign Office maintains that action taken so far by the Saudi Arabian Government does not amount, as we had suggested, to giving notice of intention to modify its agreement with Cable and Wireless, but merely constitutes a reservation of right to do so within the time limit prescribed by the agreement. Thus far, no proposals for specific modifications of the agreement have been put forward by the Saudi [Page 1014] Arabian Government. If and when it does so, its proposals will be a matter for negotiation between the parties, but in the meantime the Foreign Office finds it difficult to bind itself in advance regarding its attitude toward any modification which the Saudi Arabian Government may propose.
2.
The Foreign Office finds itself “a little puzzled” by the statement that the Arabian-American Oil Company has for a number of years been urgently in need of more rapid and direct communication facilities between Saudi Arabia and the United States, and observes that it was only in October 1944 that the Foreign Office was informed regarding any cause for complaint on that score. Moreover, Cable and Wireless has informed the Foreign Office that it had received no complaints of delay over a period of years during which time telegrams were taken by the company’s launch to Bahrein for despatch and, in the case of such messages sent, almost all were day letter telegrams which did not indicate great urgency.
3.
The Foreign Office “feels quite frankly” that, if the service is now found inadequate, the proper course is not to modify the Cable and Wireless agreement in such a way as to transfer some of its business to an American company, but rather to improve the service so as to meet any reasonable complaints. An offer to that effect was contained in the Foreign Office’s preceding communication and it still remains open, but the Foreign Office does not feel that it can accept responsibility for any further delay in the speeding up of a service which has been represented to it as an urgent war need.

Although there are obvious points in the Foreign Office’s uncompromising reply which invite immediate rejoinder, we are refraining from doing so and referring the matter to the Department for instructions.

Winant