501.AA/8–2746
Memorandum of Conversation, by the Chief of the Division of Southeast Asian Affairs (Moffat)
Mr. Bhakdi39 called by appointment at his request and informed us that the Siamese delegation had decided to submit a letter to Mr. Lie on Wednesday morning requesting postponement of consideration of the Siamese membership application. I inquired the reason for their proposal and what they proposed to say, pointing out that it seemed difficult to avoid either placing themselves in an embarrassing and perhaps ridiculous position (as such action might be construed as an admission that they were not peace-loving) or else as an attack upon the French (which would make their negotiations with the French very difficult if not impossible). Mr. Bhakdi stated it was proposed to state merely that there were conversations in progress between the French and the Siamese in an effort to settle their differences and they were requesting postponement of consideration of their application pending such settlement. He stated further that he thought such move would be of assistance to us because they knew we were anxious to minimize vetoes and to them because this course of action had been decided prior to the delegation leaving Bangkok. He explained that Siam was determined to avoid a French veto because the reaction in Siam to a veto would be so serious that border incidents and anti-French feeling would inevitably increase. The French would use such Incidents to attack the good faith of the Siamese Government and by pointing to such incidents injure the Siamese position.
I explained that Prince Svasti had mentioned at lunch time that Bhakdi would be in to inquire our views regarding such a Siamese move and two or three of us personally had been giving thought to various moves which might be made; that these were purely personal thoughts and not Department views. I explained confidentially the proposed American resolution in which our interest favoring universality was so great that I thought we would be willing to have Siam temporarily excluded from the resolution if by such action individual voting on other countries could be avoided. I explained that there seemed to us to be three procedures by which this could be accomplished: that it was possible the French might move to postpone consideration of Siam, we might make such a motion, or the Siamese might request such postponement. I reiterated that this proposal had nothing to do with Siam qua Siam. I then pointed out that if our resolution was in any event defeated and there were individual votes taken on each country, doubtless there would be numerous vetoes. [Page 439] It seemed to us in that event that possibly our good offices, if both the Siamese and French approved, might be used to urge a postponement of consideration of the Siamese application in order not to jeopardize the negotiations. He stated that if that situation should arise the Siamese for their part would appreciate such exercise of good offices by the United States.
I inquired whether in any motions for postponement the Siamese would prefer a fixed date not later than the termination of the General Assembly meeting or an indefinite date which, if the conversations were not concluded before the end of the General Assembly meeting, would result in a postponement of action on their application for a year. Mr. Bhakdi stated that the Siamese would prefer an indefinite postponement and then explained that the French appeared to consider that their potential veto or support of the Siamese membership application was a trump card in their negotiations. This, he said, was not so. Siamese membership in UN” is not so important to Siam as to warrant their giving way to the French as the price of such admission.
I inquired at least twice of Mr. Bhakdi whether the Siamese decision to withdraw its complaint had definitely been decided upon and he replied in the affirmative. I stated that we would consider further the various possibilities which we had discussed and that I would telephone him that evening any views which the Department might have on the various possibilities which I had outlined. I suggested that Mr. Konthi40 get in touch with Mr. Raynor in New York before he presented the Siamese letter to ascertain any very late developments.
After conferring with Mr. Hiss and Mr. Wallner,41 I telephoned Mr. Bhakdi in the evening that it was the view of the Department that the decision as to whether Siam would request a postponement of consideration of its membership application was one which the Siamese, after consideration of the advantages and disadvantages to themselves, must make solely from their own point of view. I said the Department would appreciate knowing definitely what action the Siamese decided upon so that it might decide what action if any it wished to take. I also said that the Department thought that if the Siamese decided to request postponement the French should be so informed and that if the Siamese did not wish to tell them directly we would be willing, if authorized by them, to have Mr. Raynor inform M. Parodi.
[Page 440]Later that evening in the course of conversation Mr. Bhakdi informed me that the Siamese delegation had decided to present the note to Mr. Lie requesting postponement of the membership application. The note would be along the lines he had indicated in the afternoon. Mr. Bhakdi also stated that the Siamese would be glad to have Mr. Raynor inform M. Parodi of their decision.