741.92/4–146: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Chargé in Australia (Minter)
56. 1. Bangkok reports text Art XI included Aus-Siamese agreement as sent Deptel 47, Apr 1. Summary of notes (urtel 41, Apr 3) relative thereto reported as follows: Siamese note gives interpretation as “understanding of Govt of Siam”. This interpretation is merely “noted” by Aus Plenipotentiary. Siamese note states that (1) Art XI is not intended impair sovereign rights of Siam, (2) Commercial [Page 963] treaty will be negotiated within 3 years, (3) “international arrangements” means multilateral arrangements between Govts, (4) “Other commodities” means rice and teak (Aus state informally they do not intend to apply it to rice), and (5) Siamese Govt will notify Aus of proposed international arrangements in order Aus may have opportunity to become party, but if other Govts concerned do not agree thereto Siam will be deemed to have discharged its obligation and may proceed with completion of arrangement.
2. Inform Ex Affairs US feels that by placing condition on sovereign right Siamese Govt to enter into agreements a precedent directly contrary sound principles international relations is established. This Govt furthermore surprised that Aus should seek special privilege from Siam without even communicating intention to other Allies.
3. Urge strongly that Aus reopen with Siamese consideration of Art XI with view either to withdrawal of Art XI or at least its redraft to place obligations contemplated on reciprocal instead of unilateral basis. Meanwhile, pending such action, US considers that Aus should in any case officially accept Siamese interpretation.
4. For your info we are repeating suggestion similar Brit representations.39 London reported Apr 240 FonOff knew nothing of Aus intention Article XI and unwilling act without study. Bangkok reports that apparently Evatt personally drafted Art and refused any change at Siamese request. Present Siamese Govt authorized signing when informed preceding Govt had committed Siamese acceptance.