Foreign Relations of the United States, 1946, The Far East, Volume VIII

741.92/3–746

The Chief of the Division of Southeast Asian Affairs (Moffat) to the First Secretary of the British Embassy (Everson)

[Washington, March 7, 1946.]

Oral Statement

The Department appreciates very much the Embassy’s courtesy in informing us orally on March 5 of the oral communication which Mr. Bird has been instructed to make to the Siamese Government with regard to the proposed substitute plan for Article XIV of the Singapore Agreement. As stated in the aide-mémoire which I am handing you,²⁰ the Department welcomes the proposed plan.

Unfortunately, there are three points in the instructions to Mr. Bird, as we understood them, which have disturbed us and we hope that our views on these points can be met before the substitute plan is formalized by an exchange of notes between the British and Siamese Governments.

First, as to the price of rice. We understand that Mr. Bird was instructed to inform the Siamese Government of the prices, to be determined by him at not to exceed £15 per ton, for which all rice exported would be paid. This not only would be inconsistent with the Embassy’s aide-mémoire but also be directly contrary to Article II, paragraph 6, of the proposed Tripartite Agreement which provides that the prices to be paid will be “determined by agreement between the Government of Siam and the Rice Commission”.

Second, as to delivery. We understand that the instructions to Mr. Bird provided that delivery of the rice specified “should be made to His Majesty’s Government” for export under the authority of the Rice Commission. We feel that this phraseology would be unfortunate in two respects. It might imply that title to the rice delivered was transferred by the Siamese to the British Government and accordingly that other countries purchasing Siamese rice under Combined Food Board allocations would purchase from the British Government and not from the Siamese. It would also seem to reduce the status of the Commission to an agency of the British Government. Both of these implications would obviously be contrary to the concept of the Tripartite Agreement. We earnestly hope therefore that the formal exchange of notes will make clear that the Siamese Government is not required to deliver the rice specified to the British Government, but is required to make the amount specified “available for exportation under the authority of the Rice Commission”, as provided in Article II, paragraph 2, of the Agreement. Failure by Siam to make the specified amount available to the Rice Commission would result in a required future contribution to the British Government free of cost of an amount of rice equal to any shortage in the specified amount.

Third, as to the Tripartite Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding. The Department wishes to reiterate its position that the Tripartite Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding are to be negotiated with the Siamese and not, insofar as this Government is concerned, merely presented for their signature. This Government will wish to consider carefully, although expeditiously, any comments or suggestions which the Siamese Government may have to offer.

20. Supra.