Conference taveng::bagels

    BAGELS readers near Boston, interested in oil politics, may
    want to visit the cultural exhibition "Saudi Arabia - Yesterday
    and Today", which continues through May 27th.
    
    Admission to the exhibition is free. It is open from 10 AM to 8 PM,
    at the World Trade Center of Boston, adjacent to Fish Pier.
    I believe the site was previously known as Commonwealth Pier
    Exhibition Hall. Large groups may need advance arrangements,
    individuals do not.
    
    The exhibition contains little (or nothing) directly pertaining
    to Israel, but does cover major topics such as Islam, the land,
    industry (esp. minerals), society, education, and aspects of
    foreign affairs of Saudi Arabia. And of course, nation building.
    
    I suppose Saudi Arabia funds or subsidizes various activities
    of its Arab brother-nations, but is considered, officially
    at least, to be a moderate Arab kingdom. Obviously Saudi Arabian
    affairs have been strategic for the US Gvt and various US
    petroleum firms.
    
    The exhibition is quite large, probably requiring
    2 or 3 hours to see everything. Most exhibits are static. 
    This appears to be a road tour; visiting other cities too...
    
    For exhibit info (in Mass., a least) call 1-800-822-7239.
    For road & parking info call 1-617-439-5044.
    

    In light of recent events in Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia:
    
    Any reaction to the large Saudi Arabia exhibit which recently
    came to Boston (refer to 899.1) ? Did many BAGELers see it?
    Staff at the exhibit said headed to Toronto (?). Is it
    in Canada now?
    
    Any comments on the Iraqi ambassador's recent "complaints"
    about USA's attitude toward Isreali-occupied territories ?
    
    Any comments on KOC (Kuwait Oil Company) and how it's
    changed (hands) over the years?
    
    Any thoughts on the USA's rapidly escalating military
    presence in Saudi Arabia, which President Bush says is the
    most urgent (or largest?) US mobilization since WW2 ?
    
    Any thoughts on ARAMCO (and/or "Saudi ARAMCO"), and what
    it means re US/Israeli relations?
    
    Also, do folks have any position on the "validity" (however
    minescule or negligible) of Iraq's (Hussein's) "territorial claim"
    that Kuwait was once a portion of the Iraqi province of Basrah ?
    
    Does anyone care to comment on history of the TPC (Turkish
    Petroleum Company), renamed the IPC (Iraq Petroleum Company),
    as it relates to the power of the pre-OPEC international oil
    cartel, and the development of middle-east oil politics?
    
    thanks
    John
    

    I *think* that the ancestors of the Kuwaiti royal family moved into the
    territory now called Kuwait (well, up until a week or so ago,
    anyhow...) about 250 years ago with their followers and that the area
    was basically not settled before that.  There isn't much of anything
    there except oil: it is true dessert so there is no agriculture.  As
    far as I can tell (as a highly prejudiced American Jew and Zionist)
    Iraq simply overran the area in order to get: the oil, control over the
    price of oil to pay for their huge military equipment bills, and better
    access to the sea.  If you traced the area back to Babylonian days you
    might find some settlements there, but the climate was different that
    long ago - I believe partially because irrigation caused a slow buildup
    of salt in the "soil" (mainly sand) (Egypt is having the same problem
    now).
    
    I am obviously by no means an expert on the history of the fertile
    crescent, so this is strictly my opinion.
    
    I just finished taking a class from an Arab fellow who has close family
    members living in Northeastern Saudi Arabia, so I have been hearing a
    lot about that part of the world lately.  One definitely does get the
    feeling that it really will take the coming of the messiah to bring
    peace to that part of the world!
    
    /Charlotte
                                    

    Re: .2
    
    John,
    
    How about you to start answering your own qestions?  What is your
    own position?
    
    Leo

re: (part of) .2

As loathe as I may be to credit Saadam Hussein and other Iraqis, they do have 
a point as to the territory called Kuwait.  It really was part of Iraq, but 
Britain in a classic (a la creating Pakistan out of India) final act of 
colonialism decided that the Emir and his family should have their own 
country.

--David

.5> ... they do have 
.5> a point as to the territory called Kuwait.  It really was part of Iraq ...

Bullshit.  Both were part of the Ottoman Empire, as were what are now Jordan,
Israel, Syria, and much of the rest of the Middle East.  The Ottomans made the
mistake of being on the losing side of WWI, and the British and French divided
up most of the empire between themselves.

Syria has in the past claimed both Lebanon and Israel, using the same reasoning
that Saddam is using for his claim to Kuwait.  The only real difference is that
Saddam was strong enough to grab Kuwait, at least so far, but Syria hasn't
(yet) been strong enough to do the same to us.  (Syria does have a large amount
of control over a large portion of Lebanon, but nothing like Iraq and Kuwait.)

    Well, if you are going to allow territory that was once part of the
    Ottoman empire, you might as well say that the entire area belongs by
    rights to Macedonia since it was part of Alexander's empire... or pick
    your favorite emperor/empire.

re .7

> Any excuse will do if you're the conqueror

Better yet, the conqueror doesn't have to make any excuses.  When dealing with 
a man like Sadaam, the only rule that applies is "might makes right."

(or, to borrow a phrase from the Murphy's Law book: "A Smith & Wesson beats 
four Aces" :-)

I dont think for a minute that he believes his own excuse, "its by right ours 
anyway."  It just provides a hook for apologists and Arabists (like Evans and 
Novak) to hang their hats on.

    re: .6
    
    No need to get testy.  Syria's claim to Lebanon and Israel is unrelated
    to the historical fact that there never was a Kuwait before Britain
    annointed it.  What has the Ottoman Empire have to do with it?  Does
    colonial conquest rewrite facts?  Perhaps Italy has a claim on Israel
    because Palestine was a part of the Roman Empire if you want to use
    that logic.
    
    I'm not approving of Saadam Hussein.  But I am trying to point out that
    the West redrew the boundaries in the Middle East and elsewhere so as
    to "insure" their "interests" once they left.  This has nothing and
    everything to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict, if you know what I
    mean.  Both Jews and Arabs have been screwed over by others.
    
    --David 

    Some sources say that the British eased Kuwait away from
    Mesopotamia (then under Ottoman control) around 1910, due to
    the Berlin-to-Baghdad Railway. There was a proposal to
    extend or route that railroad (a joint German & Ottoman venture)
    beyond Baghdad to a sea terminus at Kuwait (then a minor seaport
    and fishing village).
    
    The railroad, financed primarily by the Deutsche Bank, was
    always viewed as a threat to British possessions and
    influence in the East (India etc.), and as undermining
    the predominance of the Suez Canal. So, Britain resisted the
    proposed use of Kuwait as a railroad terminus and took steps
    remove it from Turkish control and to separate it from Mesopotamia.
    [that's what I heard, anyway...]
    
    Some books identify the *planning* for that particular railroad as
    being a focus of much diplomatic opposition and maneuvering, which
    eventually emerged as WWI.
    

.9>    ... there never was a Kuwait before Britain annointed it.

Precisely when did Iraq become an independent country?  In what fashion was it
established?  Was Kuwait a part of it then?  Has Kuwait *ever* been under Iraqi
rule?

It is a fact that the boundaries of many third-world countries were determined
by their former colonial masters.  Does this give Saddam the right to conquer
all of them?

    It took Western Europe several centuries of war to define and form
    the current set of ethnically-based nation-states.  Eastern Europe
    is still working on this (e.g. is Czechoslovakia one nation or two?
    Where should the Hungary-Romania border be?  How many nations
    should Yugoslavia be?  Are Russians different from Byelo-Russians?).
    
    Turkey, Israel and Iran are clearly nations and there are good
    historical and cultural reasons for splitting off Egypt from the
    Middle East, but the Arabs of the Middle East don't divide into
    ethnically-based nation-states as naturally.
    
    Given the articial nature of most Third-World borders, and the
    potential for wars when they are re-adjusted, I can understand the
    UN's desire to freeze the current border status and to prevent
    Iraq from setting a border-adjustment precedent.  But such artifical
    borders don't help promote stability.
    
    By the way--did you know that the Turks have built large dams on
    the upper reaches of the Tigris and the Euphrates, and that the
    lakes behind the dams have not yet been filled?  If Turkey were to
    close the valves, the rivers could be shut off for several months
    (article in _The_Economist_ of a month or so back).  Iraq has no
    other significant supply of irrigation water.
    
    			-John Bishop

re .12:

>    Turkey, Israel and Iran are clearly nations and there are good
>    historical and cultural reasons for splitting off Egypt from the
>    Middle East, but the Arabs of the Middle East don't divide into
>    ethnically-based nation-states as naturally.

Going back to ancient times, there have been many seats of power in the Middle
East:

  - Jerusalem had its maximum influence during the reign of Shlomo (Solomon)
  - Samaria (not really - it didn't last that long...) the capital of the
     northern Israelite kingdom, which was conquered by...
  - Damascus, the capital of the Assyrians
  - Babylon, a.k.a the Caldeans (in hebrew the Casdim) under Nebuchadnezzar
     conquered the entire area - capital in Bagdad
  - Persia (in hebrew Parat and Madai) took over from the Babylonians
  - Greece under Alexander 
  - Rome
  - Byzantium
  - Ottoman Empire
  - etc.

Also Egypt was always a major player until it fell first under Greek then Roman
influence.

This is by no means continuous - there were times in between empires when the 
area was in flux.  

(Q: was there any major powers in between Persia and Greece?  Greece and Rome?)

Sadaam has claimed to be the successor of Nebuchadnezzar - restoring greatness 
to Bagdad of old.  The Shah (remember him?) had delusions of puting the Persian
Empire back on the map.  Similarly Syria with its designs on Israel and Lebanon.

(Do I dare say anything about "Greater Israel"? nah...)

Even if the ethnicity of the Arab world has homogonized (except Iran), each of 
ancient seats of power would love to get its old power back.

				louuuuuuuuuu

    re: .11
    
    The fact that Saadam is the dictator of Iraq, and he invaded Kuwait,
    does not negate the Balkanization of the Middle East.  Have you
    forgotten Mr. Sykes and Mr. Picot?
    
    --David 

.12>    Given the articial nature of most Third-World borders, and the
.12>    potential for wars when they are re-adjusted, I can understand the
.12>    UN's desire to freeze the current border status and to prevent
.12>    Iraq from setting a border-adjustment precedent.  But such artifical
.12>    borders don't help promote stability.

It's not just the UN.  The Organization for African Unity, for example, has a
definite policy of *not* questioning the borders established by the former
colonial powers.  This is not because of their high regard for the
border-drawing capabilities of West Europeans; their sole motivation is that
they believe that observance of those borders *does* "promote stability".  The
policy is not followed universally, of course, but to the extent that it is, it
keeps the situation in Africa from being much worse than at present.

 
.14>    re: .11
.14>    
.14>    The fact that Saadam is the dictator of Iraq, and he invaded Kuwait,
.14>    does not negate the Balkanization of the Middle East.  Have you
.14>    forgotten Mr. Sykes and Mr. Picot?

If you'll re-read my comments in .6 about the British and the French, I'll
think that you'll discover that I haven't.

And speaking of questions, I'm still waiting for answers to mine in .11.

Mr. Sykes?  Mr. Picot?

please explain...

    Towards the end of WWI Britain and France drew up an agreement called
    the Sykes-Picot Agreement.  Sykes was the minister from the UK side and
    of course Picot represented France, hence the name of treaty.
    
    The goal: to draw the boundaries of the (mostly)mandate Middle East.
    
    --David

Who owned what before WWI?

The British Mandate over Palestine included all of Modern day Israel and Jordon.
How were those borders established?
How far did the Ottoman Empire extend?  Was there an offical region 
called 'Palestine' before the Brits took over? 

			Louuuuuuuuuu

    As I read it in I forget which paper (wire service story, probably),
    the Al-Sabah dynasty has ruled Kuwait since the 1720s.  The Ottomans
    demanded and received tribute for part of that time, but never actually
    ruled it.  (They really did rule what's now Iraq, including Basra north
    of the Kuwaiti border.)  The British made deals to displace the
    Ottomans, in exchange for (right to put bases there) concessions.
    
    The Persian Gulf coast had many self-governing sheikhdoms, several of
    which (after being under British protectorate) are now the UAE.  The
    "Trucial Coast" wasn't technically independent but was hardly a crown
    colony.  Iraq became independent in the 1930s.
    
    Saddam's claim sounds pretty weak to me.