Dividing the spoils of World War I- How oil companies gobbled up lrad a - BRITONS

Scan page 12

'Britain's mechanized units gave it an advantage in speed and mobility. Oil made the difference 12 SOCIALIST ACTION APRIL 1991 In the summer of 1914, the world seemed more at peace than it had been for years. To all appearances, the Great Powers had put aside their main disputes. Britain and Germany, Europe's two great industrial rivals, were beginning to work hand in hand in their colonial exploits.

Ships of the British navy were making courtesy calls at German ports. Work was underway on a joint British-German railroad line stretching from Europe all the way to the Persian Gulf. And the British had allowed the German Deutsche Bank a share in their Gulf oil concessions.

But this peace was an illusion. Behind the scenes, battles continued to rage among the great capitalist monopolies. These struggles, for new areas of investment and sources of raw materials, could not be contained within the channels of diplomacy and commercial pacts.

War would decide which of the capitalists-those headquartered in London, Berlin, Paris, or New York-would come out on top.

On Aug. 4, 1914, British First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill flashed an order to the fleet: "Commence hostilities against Germany." In the British press, yesterday's partners, the Germans, now became "barbaric hordes." Today's allies, the French, were labeled "patriots." The Allies were teaming up, the newspapers said, to fight for "the freedom of nations.

But the exact opposite was true. All of the big powers had declared war with great hopes of increasing their domination over the nations of Asia, Africa, and Eastern Europe. Soon they would set their sights on one area in particular, the valley of the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers.

This land, now called Iraq, was the gateway to the oil fields of Persia-and was thought to contain huge oil reserves of its own.

Oil made the difference For four years, the battle lines advanced and fell back. Dray horses were replaced by trucks, and the cavalry by tanks and aircraft. Soon, oil took first place as a coveted strategic commodity.

Germany was the most industrialized country in Europe, with an extensive system of railroads. But the mechanized units of Britain and its allies gave them an advantage in speed and mobility. Abundant petroleum supplies made the difference.

Eighty percent of the oil for the Allies came from their silent partner, the United States. By 1916, however, German U-boat attacks had disabled scores of oil tankers crossing the Atlantic. In December 1917, French Premier Georges Clemenceau urgently cabled President Wilson for more oil, declaring that "a failure in the supply of gasoline would cause the immediate paralysis of our armies" in the coming spring offensive.

The American oil companies quickly stepped up their deliveries. And with them came weapons and ammunition—all financed through loans at interest from American banks. The Allies could see that for future wars, they would need a safer and less expensive source of oil. For this, they looked to increase their control in the Middle East.

The European powers had to contend with two important forces in the region. First was the imperial government of the Ottoman Turks (an ally of Germany in the World War), which controlled most of the Middle Eastern lands. Second were the peoples of the Middle East-including Arabs, Kurds, Armenians, and other oppressed nationalities struggling for self-determination.

Britain's wartime objectives in Iraq, the southeastern portion of the Ottoman Empire, were described in a 1915 report prepared by the de Bensen committee, a British government group. Three goals were emphasized:

1) The province of Basra (the lower portion of Iraq) would be incorporated into Britain's possessions. This would serve to maintain British supremacy in the Gulf and be denied self-determination.

The Allies' secret treaties In several secret conferences, Britain and its allies sharpened their plans to carve up the Middle East. The word "oil," though not often mentioned in the meeting rooms, was constantly in the thoughts of the diplomats.

The Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916, a product of some of these meetings, was revealed to the world after the Bolsheviks found a copy in the Tsar's archives following the revolution. It awarded Britain a wide land bridge connecting the Mediterranean with the Persian Gulf. Britain's claim stretched from Palestine in the west to Baghdad and Basra in the east.

France, for its part, would receive the territory immediately to the north—Syria, southeastern Turkey, and Mosul (an oil-producing province with a Kurdish majority, today in northern Iraq). And the Turkish portion of Kurdistan would go to Russia.

In the meantime, Britain was attempting to draw smaller players into the war against Ottoman Turkey. On the one hand, the Zionists were assured by Foreign Secretary Sir Arthur Balfour that "His Majesty's Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."

On the other hand, Sir Henry McMahon, the British High Commissioner in Egypt, promised Hussein, the Sharif of Mecca, that Britain would back the formation of an "independent" Arab state. Sir Henry was quick to single out Iraq, however, for the use of "special administrative measures" in which Britain would "safeguard our mutual economic interests."

To further complicate the matter, pledges were given to the Kurds and the Armenians to support their demands for independent states. Atter the war, all of these vows to the oppressed nationalities of the Middle East were quickly proven worthless.

The war in Iraq At the end of September 1914, the India Office, which organized British affairs in the JOIN YOUR COUNTRY'S ARMY!

GOD SAVE THE KING Gulf region, recommended that additional troops be sent to southern Iraq. It was necessary, said the officials, to protect the AngloPersian oil installations at Abadan and also to "encourage the Arabs to rally to us and confirm the local sheikhs of Mohammerah and Kuwait [who were long-standing British puppets] in their allegiance."

The troops arrived on Oct. 23. This was several days before Ottoman Turkey had entered the war, and so the British fleet prudently waited for the war declaration before opening its bombardment of the Turkish batteries. Soon the Turks were in retreat, and the oil facilities were secure.

The British (two-thirds of the 160,000 "British" soldiers were colonial troops from India) fought their way up the Tigris to try to capture the rest of Iraq as well. But they were stymied, losing 15,814 dead in battle and 12,807 dead from disease.

Finally, on March 11, 1917, the BritishIndian army captured the city of Baghdad. Sir Mark Sykes (co-author of the Sykes-Picot Agreement) was assigned to write a high-sounding call to the Arab leaders of the region, appealing to them to collaborate with the British.

Sykes's proclamation made vague gestures Eastern federation, which would be under the leadership of Hussein of Mecca.

Meanwhile, in London, the government sat down to decide the future of the captured Iragi provinces. Sykes's declaration to the Arabs was quickly tossed into the rubbish. In fact, the ministers' decision was quite similar to the recommendations of the 1915 de Bensen Committee. Basra province would be placed under direct British rule. Although Baghdad province would be granted an Arab government, it would be under British "protection."

In August 1918, Foreign Secretary Balfour addressed the prime ministers of the Dominions. Britain, he declared, must become the "guiding spirit" in Iraq, for that was the only way to provide the most important natural resource that Britain lacked—oil. To make certain this would happen, British troops in Iraq marched northward into the oil-rich province of Mosul.

The conflict over Mosul On Oct. 30, 1918, the Ottoman Turks signed an armistice with the British. The Turks expected to be able to keep Mosul (which they had never considered part of Iraq). But the British ignored the cease-fire, marched on Mosul city, and expelled the Turkish garrisons. Soon the British set about to construct oil pipelines, railroads, and refineries in the area.

Most of the population of Mosul were Kurds, and the British toyed with the idea of sponsoring an "autonomous" Kurdish state as a British protectorate. But during 1919, there were several uprisings against the British occupation of Mosul; talk about Kurdish "national rights" was quickly put aside.

Britain found it more difficult, however, to ignore France's claims over Mosul. The Sykes-Picot Agreement had made it clear that Mosul would be in the French sphere of influence. Now Britain wanted to undo the treaty.

To make matters worse, Syria (including Palestine and Lebanon) was also in dispute. Britain had placed Prince Feisal, the eldest son of Hussein, on the throne of Syria as a counterweight to Arab demands for complete independence. But France also claimed Syria as its share of the war booty.

The Grand Alliance of the World War quickly began to unravel, and there was talk of a new war between Britain and France. Finally, after frantic negotiations, another agreement to divide up the Middle East was confirmed at San Remo, on the Italian Riviera, in April 1920.

The agreement was helped along by use of the term, "mandate." This smokescreen for imperialism, embodied in the Covenant of the League of Nations, allowed the Allied Powers to exercise "temporary" control over the colonial nations as their "sacred trust of civilization."

Thus, Britain was given mandates over Mosul (which was added to the southern provinces of Iraq), Palestine, and connecting territory (to be called Trans-Jordan). France was given most of Syria (including Lebanon) as its mandate.

In accordance with the terms of the San Remo Agreement, Britain pulled back its troops in Syria and refused to interfere when a French air squadron brought "civilization" to Damascus by strafing the defenders of the city. "King" Feisal's army was scattered, and the would-be monarch soon fled for British Palestine.

France, of course, was unhappy about giving up potential control over the rich oil reserves of Mosul. And so, the 25-percent share of the Iraqi oil concession that Britain had seized as "enemy property" from the Deutche Bank was now awarded to France. In return, France agreed to construct pipelines and railroads to transport Iraqi oil across Syria to the Mediterranean.

Thus, at the conclusion of World War I, British capitalism seemed to have come out the victor in Iraq. Its main rival, Germany, had been defeated. France had been placated. Turkey was fighting just to preserve its own territory against the Allied occupation forces.

But then, two new forces rose up to counter Britain's objectives. One was the people who lived in Iraq, who fought for their independence. The other was the American capitalist class, who wanted a piece of Iraqi oil profits. Each of these stories will be taken up in turn.

The Iraqis rise up Although the Turks had been vanquished, fighting still raged in Iraq. Armed revolts took place against the British occupation— (continued on next page)

Scan page 13

Bush throws Kurds to Saddam British troops enter Baghdad in March 1917.

(continued from previous page) principally among the Kurds in the north and the Shi'ites in rural areas of the south. The San Remo Agreement served to fan the flames; in June 1920, the Arab tribes arose in full rebellion.

By mid-August, Arab calvary had wiped out British-Indian military outposts throughout the country. One group in Baghdad proclaimed a provisional Arab government.

"What do these people want?" cried the Colonial Office diplomats, as if they had never before considered the question of complete independence.

Back in London, the government's policies came under increasing attack. How much longer," demanded The Times, "are valuable lives to be sacrificed in the vain endeavor to impose upon the Arab population an elaborate and expensive administration which they never asked for and do not want?" (Aug. 7, 1920)

The Royal Air Force was called in to crush the rebellion with explosive bombs and mustard gas. British artillery demolished entire villages. Livestock was slaughtered. Suspected rebel "ringleaders" were shot without trial. By early 1921, about 1000 British and Indian soldiers were dead or missing. The Iraqis had lost perhaps 9000.

Britain, however, was paying a heavy price for its colonial wars (Fighting had flared from Ireland to Egypt to the Crown Jewel itself—India.) The British army was no longer a strong and reliable fighting force. Soldiers were organizing antiwar demonstrations; they demanded to be sent home. In January 1919, some 5000 British troops mutinied in Calais to be demobilized.

As Britain withdrew its troops from the Middle East, it placed its interests in the region more and more under the guard of soldiers from India. But these colonial troops (many of whom were Islamic) could not be counted on to coerce fellow Moslems. A less risky alternative had to be found.

The solution that Britain chose for Iraq was to set up a nominally "independent" Arab government under British "supervision." In 1921, the British assigned Feisal to be titular head of state in Iraq. (After being expelled from Syria, Feisal was last seen sitting on his luggage in a railroad station in Palestine—a "king" without a kingdom.)

Despite the new monarch, however, real authority lay with the British High Commissioner.

By 1925, a treaty between Iraq and Britain had been prepared. Nationalist demonstrations against the treaty took place outside the Iraqi Assembly building. Not until the High Commissioner had delivered an order to Feisal empowering him to dissolve the Assembly, was a slim majority of the delegates persuaded to ratify it in emergency session.

The treaty severely limited Iraq's sovereignty. It stipulated that the king would agree to be guided by the High Commissioner "on all matters affecting the international and financial obligations and interests of his Britannic Majesty."

Enter the Americans

In the months prior to the San Remo Agreement, geologists were swarming up and down Iraq in the search for oil. They were employed by the Turkish Petroleum Company (TPC), which was owned by a consortium of capitalists based mainly in London. The British government also had a quarter share in the concession, and now the French were added as shareholders.

In the meantime, the British had not permitted American corporations to resume their prewar oil exploration in either Iraq or Palestine. Nor had they bothered to inform the United States about the British/French talks.

And so, when the San Remo Agreement became known, the United States charged that it was being excluded from the Middle Eastern oil monopoly and thus cheated of the fruits of the Allied victory.

The newspapers in this country self-righteously unmasked the British/French accord as nothing less than "imperialism." The State Department, too, took up the crusade for big business, invoking the cherished principles of the "Open Door." And Congress retaliated by passing the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, which prohibited drilling rights on public lands to foreign concerns whose governments denied similar access to Americans.

Government officials, among them Commerce Secretary Herbert Hoover, pointed out that their case would be stronger if the major American oil companies would form a united front to demand admittance into the Iraqi oil concession.

This was soon accomplished, but the Americans still seemed at a disadvantage since the new Iraqi government, which had nominal authority to grant oil rights in its territory, was effectively a colony of Britain.

Soon, however, the U.S. negotiators were armed with a secret weapon. This concerned an agreement that an American, RearAdmiral Colby M. Chester, had made with the Ottoman government in 1909. Chester had been engaged to bulla a railroad trom easter Turkey into Mosul. In return, ne was to receive the mineral rights for land up to 20 kilometers on each side of the tracks.

In late 1922, the Ottoman-American Development Company sent a delegation to Turkey to seek a renewal of the Chester concession. If approved, the British and French shareholders of the Turkish Petroleum Company could lose their "legal" claim to the oil fields of Mosul, which had been based on little more than a pre-war promise from the Ottoman government.

The U.S. State Department's Allen Dulles remarked gleefully, "The information we have is sufficient to knock the case of the Turkish Petroleum Company into a cocked hat."

Once again, the U.S. government has betrayed the Kurds in Iraq. This time, Washington has been up front enough to say explicitly that it is opposed in principle to separatist movements.

"The Bush Administration," reports The New York Times, "said it had decided to say out of the rebellions because neither group [the Shiites and the Kurds] was strong enough to rule Iraq, and if they succeeded in their regions, the country would be fractured." In plain language, that means that Washington favors Saddam crushing the Kurds.

In the 1970s, the CIA supported the Kurdish rebellion in Iraq, essentially as a pawn against Arab nationalism. The insurgents were also backed by the Shah of Iran as a means of putting pressure on Iraq.

When Saddam Hussein granted the Iranians' border claims, they dropped the Kurds forthwith, leaving them to the tender mercies of the Iraqi dictatorship.

Washington also washed its hands of the matter. Its current position confirms that it never wanted a Kurdish victory.

The stubbornly independent mountain people suffered one of the worst defeats in their history. They were subjected to brutal repression, and even a genocidal policy of "population transfer," the forcible moving of Kurds to the Arab south and the settlement of Arabs in the Kurdish north.

Rebellion is chronic in all the major Kurdish areas. At the first opportunity, the Kurds renew their fight for nationhood.

Ink PORKEY SYRIA LEBANON • Damascus JORDAN ARABI Region by The British took the threat seriously. But they had another reason to include the United States in the TPC; they realized that American money and machinery would be useful in developing the oil fields.

Thus, in December 1922, the British offered the Americans a 24 percent holding in the Turkish Petroleum Company. But the State Department advised the oil company negotiators to hold out for better terms.

Finally, on March 14, 1925, King Feisal ratified the concession of the Turkish Petroleum Company. This was seven months before the treaty was signed between Britain and "sovereign" Iraq. The High Commissioner was still pulling the strings.

The Chester concession had been knocked out of the ring. Now the way was clear for the U.S. corporations to come into the TPC.

As soon as the Americans were let through the "Open Door," of course, the portals were slammed shut. The San Remo agreement had provided that the Iraqi government would receive 20 percent of the TPC profits. But the Iraqis were now denied their share, and received a far smaller amount in royalties.

The oil companies' final agreement, in 1927, went far beyond their dickering over SOCIALIST I Their objective is often concealed for tactical reasons. The Kurdish people is divided among four states.

In Turkey, the regime denies even the existence of Kurds. But this nonexistent people is banned from speaking its nonexistent language. In the Shah's Iran, it was illegal to publish in Kurdish. The Islamic Republic has made the Kurdish countryside a desert.

During the Iran-Iraq war, Turkey even bombed Kurdish targets in Iraq to show that it was prepared to move in to suppress the Kurds if the Iraqi regime lost its ability to control the area.

So, the nationalist leaders often say that they do not aspire to independence and unity, only to autonomy or democracy within the frameworks of the states in which they live. That, however, has not reassured the oppressor states in the slightest. They have continued to repress all Kurdish national activity and to try to destroy the Kurdish nation.

Thus, defeat of the Kurdish uprising in Iraq will certainly mean new massacres and genocidal outrages. That is proved also by the slaughter recounted by refugees from the fighting in the Shiite areas of the south.

Washington's avowal that preservation of an established state is more important for it than the human rights of an entire people also exposes its claims that it went to war to rescue the Kuwaiti people. The Kurds in Iraq are far more numerous than the Kuwaitis, and they have suffered brutal repression not for months, but for decades.

U.S.S.R.

Tehran IR A N dad IRA Nation Iraq alone. At one point, the negotiators drew a red line on a map, which purported to envelop all the lands of the old Ottoman Empire. Within this area, the companies agreed not to compete with each other for oil concessions.

Thus, in the Red Line Agreement, the major American, British, and French oil companies portioned out the oil riches of the Middle East among themselves.

The following year saw another series of secret meetings, in which the oil companies agreed to build a cartel on a world scale. Prices would be fixed at high levels, refineries and tankers would be shared, and smaller companies would be frozen out.

The Great War of 1914-1918 was the first of this century's oil wars. In its aftermath, a handful of governments and capitalist monopolies were able to tighten their grip over most of the world's resources and peoples.

But the story doesn't end there. In less than a generation, another world war would be fought. Again, oil would be deemed a strategic commodity, "as necessary as blood itself." Again, whole nations would be subdivided.

And even now-there is no peace. CTION APRIL 1991 13

Scan page 14

... GIs face gov't reprisals mushroom. Tahan K. Jones (continued from page 1: “GI resisters face gov't reprisals Dozens already in prison”) in the States, Germany and Saudi Arabia.

The Marine Corps has come down hardest on the resisters.

Darwin Alrola, a U.S. Marine reservist, was sentenced to eight months in the brig and a dishonorable discharge. Marine Greg Dawson was sentenced to nine months in the brig. Corporal Erik Hayes was arrested while sleeping in his university dorm, sentenced to eight months in the brig, and given a dishonorable discharge.

One of the most outspoken marines against the Gulf War was reservist Erik Larsen. On March 21, he turned himself in to authorities in Hayward, Calif. He was handcuffed and immediately shipped 3000 miles away to Camp LeJeune, N.C.

Larsen, considered AWOL from the Marines since his unit was activated on Feb. 9, was a highly visible opponent of the Gulf war. He went on a 22-city U.S. speaking tour, appeared on numerous TV and radio shows, and appeared at antiwar rallies in Germany, Italy and England.

During the past six months, Larsen condemned "Bush's war for gasoline under a dollar a gallon" and was wildly cheered at antiwar rallies. But things are different now.

"It is a delicate time for my client," said Larsen's attorney, Robert Rivkin. "He said a lot of things already that the Marines didn't like."

The OUT NOW/Larsen Defense tee justifiably fears that the 23-year-old Marine will receive extra punishment "because of his high visibility.,, punishment Another resister who fears retribution from the Marine brass is Cpl. Tahan K. Jones. This 21-year-old Black marine was in the same unit as Larsen. Jones, too, was an outspoken opponent of the war in the Gulf. He spoke at antiwar rallies and teach-ins, linking his opposition to the war with the oppression of Blacks in the United States.

He has announced that he will turn himself in as soon as his legal defense is properly organized. (See interview with Tahan Jones in March 1991 issue of Socialist Action.)

The Army had the largest number of resisters, and hence, will have the largest number of court-martials.

In San Francisco, Calif., Ellenora Johnson, a 13-year U.S. Army medical clerk, was sentenced to three months hard labor with no prison time (the hard labor to be worked off after her normal duties), fined $2500, and given a bad conduct discharge. Johnson, a Black woman, had refused to join her unit in Saudi Arabia because of her opposition to war on religious grounds.

Stephanie Atkinson, a Philadelphia Army reservist, was given an "other than honorable" discharge after spending several days in the Fort Knox brig. Undoubtedly, in the coming months the number of soldiers and Hear a lecture by the world's leading Marxist economist: Erik Larsen reservists who'll be court-martialed will reservists who'll mushroom.

In Germany, the scene of some of the In Germany, the scene of some of the largest demonstrations against the Gulf War, over 40 GIs applied for CO discharges. The Military Counseling Network (MCN), which advises American soldiers in Germany, states they received requests for CO information from over 400 GIs.

The German peace movement made serious efforts to support the American GI resisters. A German letter writing campaign to American soldiers, commanders, and Congress members was organized to support the conscientious objectors. More than 150 prominent German citizens in Bremen and 100 in Berlin placed advertisements in newspapers announcing their willingness to house AWOL American soldiers.

The military authorities acted swiftly to put a lid on the growing GI antiwar movement in Germany.

On Dec. 28, 1990, the army shackled and forcibly deployed Specialist David Carson and seven other Gis, all with pending CO applications, to Saudi Arabia. They now await court martials.

In another case, Sgt. Derrick Jones went AWOL to consult with a civilian lawyer after his commander refused to process his CO claim. In taped negotiations with his commander, Jones was promised that it he returned to base he wouldn't be deployed to Saudi Arabia. Escorted by his lawyer, Jones returned to his base, was immediately arrested at the gate by MPs and was on a plane to Saudi Arabia within five hours.

GIs aren't the only ones, however, who have been threatened and victimized. The wives of American service members and other military dependents who opposed the war and set up support groups in Stuttgart, Frankfurt and Nuremburg, were harassed by the MPs.

One outspoken spouse of a GI stationed in SANDA Joseph Ryan/Socialist Action martial for his refusal to board a plane for Saudi Arabia.

But as Cpl. Tahan Jones told Socialist Action, "That was then, this is now. They're gonna try to hang us now."

One obstacle that the resisters face today— besides the qualitative one of a demobilized mass antiwar movement-is that they are geographically scattered and are deliberately being isolated by military authorities. Moreover, they are short of money.

Defense of the resisters is being organized by a diverse number of groups through a cooperative network.

The San Francisco-based Mobilization to Bring the Troops Home Now! recently voted to contribute the remainder of its bank account to help pay the legal costs for defending Ellenora Johnson, Tahan Jones, and Erik Larsen. In addition, the money the Mobilization raises at an April 6 antiwar demonstration will be donated to these three GIs.

Groups like the War Resisters League (WRL), Central Committee for Conscientious Objectors (CCCO), American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), OUT NOW Newsletter, and others are actively seeking funds to pay the legal costs necessary to keep the military from lynching hundreds of other GI resisters.

Signiticantiy, Amnesty International (Al) nas joinea the campaign to protect military COs. The War Resisters League reports that Al recently recognized Sgt. George Morse at Fort Riley, Kan., as a "prisoner of conscience"—their first recognition of a political prisoner in the United States since 1987. The War Resisters League is correctly urging Al to recognize the cases of all GI resisters.

The GIs resisters need our help. They resisted serving in the Gulf, refused to fight for oil profits, and helped spearhead the movement to stop the war. They now need the help of the many thousands who wildly