Foreign Relations of the United States: Diplomatic Papers, 1943, The British Commonwealth, Eastern Europe, the Far East, Volume III

892.01/12–3143

Memorandum by the Chief of the Division of Far Eastern Affairs (Ballantine)⁹

[Washington,] December 31, 1943.

Reference the underlying documents pertaining to the Free Thai movement (memorandum from the Thai Minister of December 23, 1943,¹⁰ to which is attached a memorandum to the Thai Minister from S. Tularak, President of the Committee for Siamese National Liberation,¹¹ a copy in Thai of the Thai law of September 11, 1941¹² regarding the duty of all Thai to resist invaders, and a copy of a statement¹⁰ made by Sir Josiah Crosby, former British Minister to Thailand, concerning Thailand’s declaration of war on Great Britain and the United States; Mr. Hornbeck’s memorandum of December 13 in record of a conversation with Sir George Sansom on the question of the Free Thai Movement).

It appears from the remarks of Sir George Sansom that the question of the attitude to be taken regarding Thailand—especially regarding the question of the Free Thai Movement and dealings with representatives thereof—is of concern to the British Foreign Office. Sir George indicated that the various Free Thai groups in China, India and the United States have diverse contacts with three of the United Nations groups and that out of these diverse contacts there might arise commitments or implied commitments which in the absence of a coordination of official views might lead to misunderstandings and embarrassment.

On its part the Department has likewise received intimations of a disturbing nature. It appears that there are differences and mutual dislike and suspicion between the Thai Minister in Washington and the Thai Military Attaché¹³ who was sent from Washington to Chungking … It has also been learned that some Thai in China, or while formerly in China, felt that the Chinese wished to use them to China’s political advantage. The same can be said of Thai in India with respect to the British. There also is understood to be some doubt in British and Chinese minds as to the purposes of the United States Government with respect to the Thai Minister and post-war Thailand. This is doubtless stimulated by the fact that the Thai Minister is the most prominent individual in the Free Thai movement outside of Thailand as it is at present constituted.

The need to formulate and coordinate official views on the question of the Free Thai movement is made immediate in its urgency by the memorandum of the Thai Minister based on Tularak’s memorandum to him.

Tularak’s memorandum sets forth the strength of the movement in Thailand which he claims to represent and on the basis of that showing makes certain specific political and military proposals. His political request is that assurance be given that the Movement for Siamese National Liberation would be officially recognized and a free Siamese government would be set up somewhere in Allied territory if certain political personages who are leaders of the movement in Thailand could be rescued. Contingent upon such recognition, he further requests that the Siamese government’s financial credits be unfrozen for the use of the free Siamese government if and when it be established. Suggestion is also made that Mr. Peck, former American Minister, should be accredited to the free Siamese government and that the former Advisor for Foreign Affairs, Mr. F. R. Dolbeare, an American now with OSS, should be reappointed.

In his memorandum the Thai Minister takes Tularak’s memorandum as a point of departure and then gives what he believes to be the legal basis of the Free Thai movement. He goes on to outline the course of events at the time of the Japanese occupation of Thailand and recalls that he repudiated Thailand’s alliance with Japan in a document dated December 12, 1941,¹⁵ deposited with the Department. The Minister further cites various witnesses to show that the Thai nation has been resisting the Japanese by every feasible means. He concludes with a request “to enter into negotiations with the United States Government, with a view to carrying on to its honourable conclusion the Thai resistance as provided by law.”

The request of the Thai Minister raises the question of the possible courses which the Department might follow with respect to the Free Thai Movement.

One course would be to permit that Movement to continue as at present, but with clearer definition of its status so as to avoid misunderstanding among the interested members of the United Nations. Thai, prominent or otherwise, who might succeed in escaping from Thailand, would be free to join the Movement and make their contribution to the war effort. The advantages of not setting up any official Thai organization with political implications are fairly obvious and need not be expounded here.

Two other courses would be the establishment of (1) a government-in-exile or (2) a committee of national liberation. Either course would be contingent on a number of imponderable factors such as (a) the ability of an adequate number of Free Thai to escape from Thailand, (b) the extent to which the escapees would actually represent the sentiments of the people of Thailand, (c) the actual advantage or disadvantage to the war effort of such an official body, and (d) the willingness of this Government to become involved in Thailand’s internal politics to the extent of deciding whether the Free Thai group or the Pibul Government, which was legally established and continues to function in Bangkok although under Japanese domination, represents Thailand.

In opposition to these two courses it can be said that recognition by the Department of either such organization would be contrary to the Department’s policy of not granting recognition to free movements. The attitude of the Department on free movements has not exceeded the statement made by Mr. John Hickerson for the Secretary of State in a letter to Judge Felix Forte sent on May 28, 1943¹⁶ in reply to a question regarding the policy of this Government toward free movements in the United States. The answer was made that “the Department has not accorded official recognition to any of the free movements” although they have been regarded and treated with sympathy and understanding. Within the last few days this attitude was reaffirmed by officers of Eu¹⁷ with respect to Austria. The question of the status of Austrian groups had arisen as a sequel to the Moscow declaration.¹⁸

The French Committee of National Liberation appears superficially to offer some precedent for a similar Thai Committee but actually the cases are quite different. It is sufficient to say that the French were our active allies, that the French Committee represents the best cooperation in the war of which the French, as allies, are at present capable, and that the French actually administer territory within the sphere of the United Nations. The French do not offer an exception to the Department’s policy on free movements because they have not been regarded as a free movement in the usual sense. According to some officers in Eu the French have been treated as in a category by themselves. Russia has gone so far as to recognize the French Committee as the representative of the state interests of the French Republic and has exchanged plenipotentiary representatives. The United States has made a statement recognizing the French Committee as administering those territories which acknowledge its authority and has assigned Mr. Edwin C. Wilson as the representative of the United States Government to the French Committee with the personal rank of Ambassador.

Various governments-in-exile such as the Netherlands Government-in-exile offer no precedent for a Thai group of government officials who might escape from Thailand to set up a government-in-exile. The various governments-in-exile which are recognized were regularly functioning before Axis occupation and simply continued functioning within the limitatitons of their new situation. Furthermore they expect to return to their various countries to take up the work of administration again.

The situation of the Thai is closer to that of Denmark than to any other Axis controlled nation. Both have accredited Ministers at Washington who have declared themselves independent of the current government while affirming loyalty to the King; both have kings who are now the figureheads of government and who will probably be available for the formation of democratic government after the war; the United States is not in a state of war with either of the nations but Thailand has declared war on the United States; and prominent men have escaped from Denmark who are capable of establishing a government-in-exile while prominent men plan to escape from Thailand. On the other hand the Thai King in Switzerland is not in the hands of the enemy as the Danish King is. As yet the Department has opposed the idea of setting up a Danish government-in-exile.

Another possible course would be to permit the Thai to organize a council which might be known as The Advisory Council Representing the Movement of Thai National Liberation. The Council would be made up of prominent men from Thailand who are representative of the Movement of Siamese National Liberation (described in the memorandum of S. Tularak) and who are so recognized by the Thai Minister at Washington. The Council would have no political status either of a government-in-exile, as the Netherlands, or of a national committee of liberation, as the French. All official relations would be with the Thai Minister as usual. It would be understood, however, that the Thai Minister would speak with the advice of the Council and that his acts would represent their considered opinion. Such a development would avoid cutting across the Department’s policy of not giving political status to free movements, it would avoid the difficulties of a national committee of liberation with its implied or inferable political commitments, it would avoid the dangers of a government-in-exile which would expect to return to Thailand to become the government for at least an initial period of time, it would avoid the difficulties involved in getting this and other United Nations Governments committed to the idea of a government-in-exile or a committee of national liberation while there are so many factors still imponderable. It would have the positive advantage of offering a means for Thai of ability to focus their strength and make themselves felt in as effective a way as possible under the limitations of the situation. Such a Council should satisfy the Thai and should be an enlargement of Free Thai activities on which the interested United Nations Governments could agree.

FE believes that it would be desirable to explore further the suggestion of the establishment of an Advisory Council and as a first step toward that end suggests that the Department confer in regard thereto with OSS, under which most of the Free Thai who cooperate with American agencies function. Following such conference the Department might then ask the Thai Minister to call so as to obtain a clarification of the Thai Minister’s views on points pertinent to this problem. Depending on the results of the conversations with OSS and the Thai Minister, it might then be advisable to discuss the matter with the British Minister, Sir George Sansom. It is possible, however, that the outcome of the conversation with OSS might suggest that perhaps the Department should talk with Sir George Sansom before calling in the Thai Minister. Ultimately, in the event that unanimity was apparent following the taking of these suggested steps, we might look forward to the formulating of a joint official view on the part of interested United Nations in order that there might be avoided any misunderstanding as to the intentions of the United Nations with respect to the Free Thai movement and the future independence of Thailand.

There is attached a draft letter¹⁹ to General Donovan of the OSS, enclosing a copy of the Thai Minister’s memorandum and a record of Mr. Hornbeck’s conversation with Sir George Sansom. Subsequent to the dispatch of this letter, contact might be made by telephone with Colonel M. Preston Goodfellow of the OSS suggesting that he call at the Department to discuss the matter with Mr. Hornbeck and officers of FE.

J[oseph] W. B[allaottne]

9. Addressed to the Assistant Secretary of State (Berle) and the Adviser on Political Relations (Hornbeck) who concurred.
10. Not printed.
11. Not printed; it was a copy of the memorandum received by the Embassy in China on September 23.
12. Not found attached to file copy.
10. Not printed.
13. Lt. Col. Mom Luang Kharb Kunjara.
15. Not printed. This document was a copy of a broadcast by the Thai Minister to the citizens of Thailand (740.0011 Pacific War/1401). For statement to similar effect by the Thai Minister, see Foreign Relations, 1941, vol. v, p. 389.
16. Not printed: the actual sending date of this letter was June 6, 1943.
17. Division of European Affairs.
18. For text, see vol. i, p. 761.
19. Letter of January 13, 1944, from Assistant Secretary of State Berle, not printed.