Skip to content

Results:

1 - 10 of 15

Documents

March 31, 1993

The Chancellor's [Helmut Kohl's] Meeting with Egyptian President Hosny Mubarak in Bonn on 30 March 1993, 15.30-17.20 hours

Kohl and Mubarak discuss the recent bomb attack in Cairo and the question of the assassins. Upon Kohl's question, Mubarak rejects the idea that Libya and Gaddafi could be behind it. Rather, Mubarak suggests the changes in Gaddafi’s position and the latter's concern about fundamentalist terror in Libya. Mubarak thinks Iran was behind the terror attack in Cairo.

February 20, 1991

The Chancellor’s [Helmut Kohl's] Conversation with President Mitterrand at the Elysée on 15 February 1991

Kohl and Mitterrand examine the Soviet position in the Gulf War and the situation in the Baltics. 

February 13, 1991

The Chancellor’s [Helmut Kohl's] Conversation with British Prime Minister Major on Monday, 11 February 1991, at the Chancellor’s Office

Kohl and Major review Germany's financial contributions in the support of the Gulf coalition and Kohl's plans for changes in the German constitution in order to enable the Federal Republic's participation in future out-of-area missions. In addition, they talk about the domestic situation in the Soviet Union.

January 31, 1991

The Chancellor's [Helmut Kohl's] Conversation with British Foreign Minister Douglas Hurd on 30 January 1991

Kohl and Hurd discuss Germany's financial aid in support of Britain's military operations in the Gulf in the amount of DM 800 million. Moreover, Kohl reviews his efforts for constitutional changes in order to enable Germany's participation in future of out-of-are missions.

January 28, 1991

Memorandum of Telephone Conversation: Telcon with Chancellor Kohl of Germany, January 28, 1991, 11:08-11:28 a.m.

On a phone call, Bush and Kohl discuss the Gulf War, including the evacuation of Iraqi planes to Iran, Saddam Hussein's state of mind, the role of Turkey, and German's financial contribution.

October 15, 1951

Complaint of Failure by the Iranian Government to Comply with Provisional Measures Indicated by the International Court of Justice in the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company Case (S/2357)

In 1901, Iran granted an oil concession to a foreigner: William Know D’Arcy (1949-1917), a British national who before had worked in mining in British imperial Australia and New Zealand. The 60-year concession gave the Iranian government, then led by the Qajar dynasty (1794-1925), 16-percent of annual profits. In 1908, D’Arcy’s engineers found oil in the southwestern province of Khuzistan, bordering Ottoman Iraq. The same year, D’Arcy’s company became the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC; from 1935 Anglo-Iranian Oil Company [AIOC]; from 1954 British Petroleum [BP]), which by 1913 began to commercially exploit Iranian oil. In 1914, the British government bought 51-percent of APOC’s shares and hence effectively its control, which mattered particularly to the Navy, the world’s largest, that was shifting from coal to oil combustion. In 1933, the 1901 concession was moderately revised. Iran now received 20-percent of annual profits, and APOC made other minor concessions, agreed on in a meeting between Reza Shah Pahlavi (1878-1944, r. 1925-1941) and APOC Chairman John Cadman (1877-1941).

Iranian AIOC laborers’ and the Iranian public’s complaints about the status quo grew audible after the Anglo-Soviet occupation of Iran opened up the political sphere in 1941. Later that decade, nationalist parliamentarians, including Muhammad Musaddiq (1882-1967), began to demand a new agreement along the lines of the 50-50 profit-sharing deal that Venezuela’s 1943 Hydrocarbons Law had successfully imposed on foreign oil companies. AIOC refused. Its 1949 counter-offer was accepted by Muhammad Reza Shah Pahlavi (1919-1980, r. 1941-1979) but rejected by parliament, not the least because in 1950 also Saudi Arabia got a 50-50 profit-sharing deal with ARAMCO. In April 1951, parliament elected Musaddiq Prime Minister.

Having for a long time criticized AIOC’s role—and by extension Britain’s influence—in Iran, Musaddiq demanded AIOC respect sovereign control. When it refused, he cancelled its concession and nationalized its assets in Iran. The following two years were fateful. They ended with a CIA-led coup d’Etat that in 1953 ousted Musaddiq, turned Iran into a US client, and allowed the US government to bring (initially not quite willing) US oil companies into Iran, sidelining BP, and to create a consortium in 1954 that paid Iran 50-percent of its profit. Moreover, Iran’s oil nationalization drama was an international affair. Anticolonial masses treated Musaddiq as a hero also outside Iran, as Lior Sternfeld shows in “Iran Days in Egypt: Mosaddeq’s Visit to Cairo in 1951” (2015). And Christopher Dietrich’s Oil Revolution (2017) demonstrates that among anticolonial elites in many non-Western countries and at international organizations like the United Nations (UN), Iran’s case sharpened conversations about and demands for economic decolonization, i.e. for politically independent countries’ right to also exercise sovereign rights over their resources. (Publics were involved in these debates, too.)

In New York, Iran’s UN delegate Djalal Abdoh (1909-1996) was a leading voice in this regard, together with colleagues especially from Latin America, the Middle East, and Asia. Moreover, Musaddiq himself addressed international organizations on economic decolonization. In June 1952, he was at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, The Netherlands, which would accept Iran’s claim that AIOC’s nationalization was a domestic Iranian rather than an international legal matter. And on October 15, 1951, he addressed the UN Security Council’s 560th meeting in New York, speaking in French; as he was frail, after a while Allahyar Saleh, Iran’s ambassador to the United States, took over.

November 9, 1944

Letter No. 402 from L.D. Wilgress, Canadian Embassy, Moscow, to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, W.L. Mackenzie King

The Canadian Ambassador to the Soviet Union, L.D. Wilgress, thoroughly reviews Soviet foreign policy in Europe, Asia, and in Latin America and its relations with the United States and the United Kingdom. Wilgress optimistically concludes that "the Soviet Government are desirous of co-operating fully with the other great powers."

December 22, 1954

Soviet Translation, 'Statement of the Iran Party Regarding the Bill to Receive a Loan from Foreign Countries' (Attachment)

The Iran Party's statement is critical of the recent loans made to Iran by the Americans and the British, which it believes will leave Iran indebted to countries that just want to exploit the people and resources of Iran. Also includes various Iranian trade figures.

October 15, 1952

Report to V. M. Molotov on Draft Instructions to Cde. Sadchikov, the Soviet Ambassador in Iran

Draft set of instructions for the Soviet Ambassador to Iran, Sadchikov. Indicates several areas for him to pay attention to and report on, specifically Iranian national liberation movements, the "National Front," and plans for nationalizing the oil industry. Also note that he should be especially careful to not appear as if the Soviet Union is taking a stance against Mohammad Mossadegh.

July 12, 1951

VKP(b) CC Decree Draft, Soviet-Iranian Negotiations

Draft attached to telegram, explaining that the Soviet Ministry of Foreign Relations (MFA) and Ministry of Foreign Trade (MVT) disagree with the idea of suspending negotiations with Iranians. Specifically, this is because they believe the recess will be used against them by the British and Americans in Iran.

Pagination