Quincy Agreement

Belgian thought

Master Poster
Belgian thought
Joined
May 3, 2004
Messages
2,342
There is a documentary from the BBC by Adam Curtis
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p02gyz6b/adam-curtis-bitter-lake
which claims that during the Quincy Agreement (on Bitter Lake), the US was given access to Saudi Oil on the agreement that the then King/Sheik, and I presume successor, could spread Wahabism through the area.

A dissemination of such ideas, one could argue , being a primary reason of the current ME conflict.

Apart form Curtis's theory, I have not been able to find proof that this indeed was the negotiating position.

I was wondering if any historians here might shed some light.

Thank you
 
Belgian thought said:
which claims that during the Quincy Agreement (on Bitter Lake), the US was given access to Saudi Oil on the agreement that the then King/Sheik, and I presume successor, could spread Wahabism through the area.
Click to expand...

Which area? And why did the Saudis need permission from the US?

Here is all that Wikipedia has to say on the matter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Quincy_(CA-71)#The_Quincy_Agreement

From 14 February, President Roosevelt and King Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia met aboard the Quincy. During the meeting, President Roosevelt tried to persuade Saud to give support for Jewish immigration to Palestine and hoped that Ibn Saud might be able to offer constructive advice on the Palestine issue. There, Roosevelt and Saud concluded a secret agreement in which the U.S. would provide Saudi Arabia military security – military assistance, training and a military base at Dhahran in Saudi Arabia – in exchange for secure access to supplies of oil.[1]
Click to expand...

The Wikipedia article on Wahhabism also has some interesting discussion on its history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism
 
The idea strikes me as ludicrous on its face. The Wikipedia explanation of the agreement makes sense: the US side gives something of value it can give in exchange for something of value which the Saudis can provide in return.

Why would the Saudis need to ask permission from the US to spread Wahhabism in the Middle East or Afghanistan? Did the US claim any of those territories at the time? I suppose the British claimed a lot of those territories but I don't think the US claimed any of them. In any case, Roosevelt probably didn't know much about Wahhabism, and in America there is freedom of religion, so anyone can proselytize. If he agreed to it, he probably didn't think there might be real-world consequences. Those areas were already majority Muslim, right? Roosevelt could hardly be expected to differentiate one Muslim sect from another.
 
Puppycow said:
The idea strikes me as ludicrous on its face. The Wikipedia explanation of the agreement makes sense: the US side gives something of value it can give in exchange for something of value which the Saudis can provide in return.

Why would the Saudis need to ask permission from the US to spread Wahhabism in the Middle East or Afghanistan? Did the US claim any of those territories at the time? I suppose the British claimed a lot of those territories but I don't think the US claimed any of them. In any case, Roosevelt probably didn't know much about Wahhabism, and in America there is freedom of religion, so anyone can proselytize. If he agreed to it, he probably didn't think there might be real-world consequences. Those areas were already majority Muslim, right? Roosevelt could hardly be expected to differentiate one Muslim sect from another.
Click to expand...

Exactly - I find the premise of this documentary interesting to say the least, but as to its veracity, I have my doubts.

I am delving and in the meantime found this good read http://www.ameu.org/getattachment/5...bc/The-Day-FDR-Met-Saudi-Arabia-Ibn-Saud.aspx - the article states - "The record of what the two leaders said is remarkably skimpy, considering the importance of the event. The meeting attracted little notice in the American press at the time ..." page 8.

This reinforces my scepticism - what information does/did Curtis have to make such a claim?
 
I contacted the author of this link http://www.ameu.org/getattachment/5...bc/The-Day-FDR-Met-Saudi-Arabia-Ibn-Saud.aspx - and he kindly answered.

I quote him in full, he has given me his permission to do so.

My question was this:

"There is currently a documentary on the BBC iPlayer by Adam Curtis http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...is-bitter-lake
which claims that during the Quincy Agreement (on Bitter Lake), in negotiations, the US was given access to Saudi Oil on one agreement being that the then King Abdul Azi, and I presume successors, could spread their Islamic ideals (Wahabism) through the area freely.

Apart form Curtis's theory, I have not been able to find proof that this indeed was the negotiating position taken by the King, and as your very interesting paper 'The Day FDR Met Saudi Arabia’s Ibn Saud' - April - May 2005 states; "The record of what the two leaders said is remarkably skimpy, considering the importance of the event."

I find that the premise which Adam Curtis starts his documentary with, and the conclusions he reaches rather woolly.

I was wondering if you could shed any light on this.

Thank you for your time."

Tom Lippman wrote

"I haven't seen the documentary, but based on your description I can say it is nonsense. The king and President Roosevelt met in 1945. By that time, an American corporation had already had exclusive access to all the oil in Saudi Arabia for 12 years and had already started producing and shipping it. Roosevelt did not need to offer anything to ensure American access to Saudi oil, and he did not. There is no evidence, even in the declassified documents, that the two men discussed oil at all. Mostly they talked about Palestine, but they also discussed the future of agriculture in the kingdom. I went through the entire record when I was writing my book "Arabian Knight," which is a biography of the US Marine-diplomat who arranged the meeting, William A. Eddy. Tom Lippman"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom