OIL AND IDEALS.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 3584, 9 March 1914, Page 6

OIL AND IDEALS.

TROUBLES IN LATIN LANDS. EMULSION WON’T FORM. That oil and ideals, like water, will not mix is aJs* B ™ that some watchersjfof recent developments in Mexico an<& countries feel President soon be learnf .Im liis present Mexican policy armed intervention, says a London weekly, the President will have nothing more nor less than an “oil war” on his hands. Ex-Ambas-sador Wilson denounces the “sordid” mixing of rival oil concessionaries in Mexican politics, and in his lectures declares that British oil interests are behind the present Government in Mexico, just as American oil interests were behind the Maderd Administration. British cruisers and United States battleships are on hand to protect the works of the Pearson oil interests near Tampico, which are imperilled by the operations of Mexican revolutionists.

Lord Cowdray, head of the Pearson companies, “has put the Monroe Doctrine to the test,” notes the New York “Commercial,” by personally asking the United States Government to retect the interests he represents. This gentleman’s solicitude “about his oil properties in the neighborhood of Tuxpain and elsewhere in Mexico is natural enough,” observes the New York “Sun,” in view of the importance ofl petroleum nowadays, especially since the maritime Powers are substituting it for coal as fuel for their battleships. But this oil feature of the Mexican tangle is but a small part of the great problem of the Caribbean oil fields, we read in a carefully-pre-pared article in the “Sun.” The very fact that the Pearson contract for an oil concession in Columbia was withdrawn before its ratification by the Colombian Congress on the ground of its “being used to stir up American opposition” is taken as an indication of the growing realisation of the importance of the problem in all the countries concerned. Efforts of British concerns to control the production of petroleum in the region of the Panama Canal are vastly significant, it is stated by the “Sun’s” Washington correspondent, because they are bound up with the maintenance of British naval supremacy on the one hand, and on the other with the future of tho Canada and our relations with Latin America under President Wilson’s new “idealistic” policy. The difficulty apparently bos here: the only way the resources of the countries to the South can be delivered is by granting concessions to foreign capital; the United States cannot afford to let the oil supplies in the region of the Panama Canal “fall into the hands of potential enemies,” yet the United States Government takes a position as discouraging to American as to European investors. To quote the “Sun’s” remarks upon the propect of British control of the Caribbean oil supply:— “What such a control would mean can hardly he appreciated until two great facts but little known are taken into consideration. One is that the mercantile marine is rapidly converting itself into an oil-consuming instead of a coal-burning agency. The other is that by virtue of the richness of the Mexican and other Caribbean oil fields, together with their location, oil from these regions can be laid dawn at the Panama Canal for about half the cost of coal delivered at-the same spot. These two facts, it is declared bv experts, are alone sufficient to ensure the unbounded success of the Caribbean oil fields a tremendous weapon in the hands of their possessor.”

Great Britain has discerned this, continues the “Sun,” and it finds reason to believe that Germany and France are also awaking to the situation. Now, we read further: — “What would lie a peifectly normal situation of keen competition for acquisition of one of the richest oil fields the world lias ever yet known is complicated by the attitude taken by President Wilson with respect to the dvelopment _of Latin-Americai im.uiral losoinces. President W in his Mobile speech/declared himself as opposed to the granting of concessions by Latin-American Governments, and announced that it was the mission of the United States to free these Governments from foreign domination.” It is generally believed in Washington, according to this correspondent of the “Sun,” “that if President Wilson endeavors to put this declaration into practical effect, lie will have embarked upon a very bold policy of international domination and that he will have to prepare himself for complications with the Old World Powers.” For, “If the Caribbean regions aro to become the world’s greatest source of supply of petroleum, which will also be obtainable at the lowest cost once the development of these fieds is under way, it is hardly to bo expected that these Powers are going to permit themselves to be deprived of tho benefits of such natural resources becauso of a moral issue which they do not recognise.” England in particular, according to the “Sun,” has a long-term contract with Lord Cowdray for a “continuous supply of oil fuel at a steady price” for the use of the Navy, and so is “bound by her most vital self-interest, that of maintaining her naval supremacy, to stand behind the Cowdray Oil operations in every way.” In Colombia, the Pearson interests wanted Congress to ratify a concession entitling them to exploit petroleum and carry on all works necessary for producing and transporting it in an area of 10,000 square kilometres “in any part of the national property.” Press denunciatians of this as a monopoly were answered vigorously by Lord Cowdray, who pointed ou tthat there w r as no mention of “exclusive rights over the whole of Columbia” anywhere in the contract. Competitors of the Pearsons. who have obtained concessions in Colombia, support assertion with regard to the final proposition, Though they add: that the original Pearson scheme was to secure complete monopoly. The New York “Herald” quotes a prominent Colombian’s comment that the Pearson contract. “in reality” would have con&ti-

tuted a monopoly, because under it the British firm “would claim all the ground notoriously rich in oil and lay claim to any oil regions that might be discovered in the future.” And several Washington correspondents heard tho concession described as tho groundwork for a system such as the East India Company built up in India and which would violate the spirit of the Monroe Doctrine. Although the United States Government took no official stand against the contract, correspondents of the New York “Sun” and “Herald” agree that the United States State Department hoped for its rejection by the Colombian Congress, and received the news of its withdrawal by Lord Murray “with undisguised pleasure.” The outcome is regarded as a “diplomatic victory” of “double value” to the United States, according to the “Herald,” because—“lt at once establishes the policy with regard to Latin-American concessions laid down by President Wilson in his Mobile speech of October 28, and removes the one obstacle J hat stood in the way of a thorough and uninterrupted discussion of the Panama controversy with Colombia.” Lord Murray withdrew his conti act, according to an explanation cabled by Pearson and Son to the “Herald,” “owing to the political feelings which have been engendered by he negotiations.” Lord Cowdray, n a New York “Times” interview, insists that “misrepresentations of the concession in tho American press influenced ibe withdrawal.” But the “T nos,” speaking editorially, deems it “moie probable that the objections of LYffimbia herself to making contracts which would grant tho right to develop oil fields anywhere within her territory have been the controlling influence ir the matter.” An important result of this withdrawal says the New' Ybrk “Herald s” representative at Washington, will be, “according to one view,” that “President Wilson now will be obliged to formulate and make known his policy for the development of Latin-American countries.” The “Herald” reports further:— “Critics of the Administration declare that the President has not taken into consideration that the concession is a Latin-American institution; that all of those countries have, since the beginning, sought their development through concessions and in no other way, and that since the Governments own all, or practically all, of the resources which foreign capitalists would seek to exploit, it is absolutely necessary to do business with the Governments and to obtain concessions. “If, then, tho President is to oppose concessions, they ask, what means will he consider projror for the development of these countries?” Still another question which President Wilson may have to face, in the opinion of this authority, is put thus—- “ There arc at the present time several American firms seeking oil concessions in Colombia in competition with the Pearson interests, and their efforts now may he expected to bring this question to an issue: What stand will the Administration take towards American concessionaires?” 1