The Department of State to the Siamese Legation5

Both the Japanese and the British Governments have evinced interest in the attitude of the American Government toward the draft of a treaty between the United States and Siam proposed by the Siamese Government. The information which the American Government is communicating informally and in confidence to the Japanese and to the British Governments is in substance as follows:

During the past few years the American Government has concluded a number of commercial treaties with other governments. Since receipt from the Siamese Government of the draft of a proposed treaty, the Department of State has been preparing a counterdraft which incorporates the results of the experience gained by this Government in the negotiations of previous treaties and which accords more closely with the views of this Government than does the Siamese draft. The counterdraft resembles closely the standard form followed in recent treaties, an example of which is the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce, and Consular Eights signed February 13, 1934, between the United States and Finland.6 This counterdraft incorporates certain provisions [Page 827] relating to quotas and monopolies which were taken from the recent trade agreements concluded by this Government, an example of which is that signed on November 15, 1935, between the United States and Canada.7

As an alternative basis for negotiation there is being prepared a second counterdraft based upon the Siamese draft but incorporating no important variations from the first counterdraft.

The counterdrafts being prepared by the Department are, of course, not regarded as necessarily final, and it is understood that either of the Governments concerned may propose further changes at any time during the course of the negotiations.

It is believed desirable and it is requested that no publicity be given to the foregoing information.

  1. Handed to the Siamese Minister on May 27 by Assistant Secretary of State Sayre.
  2. See Foreign Relations, 1934, vol. ii, pp. 134 ff.
  3. See Foreign Relations, 1935, vol. ii, pp. 18 ff.