Office of the Historian

892.014/7–1946: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Harriman)

secret
Washington, July 19, 1946—7 p.m.

5523. US hopes French and Siamese can have further discussion border dispute either with or without outside assistance for purpose narrowing issues between them and disposing of matter without reference to SC by (1) composition their troubles through direct negotiation; (2) reference particular issues to arbitration; (3) settlement certain issues and reference others to International Court. If such settlement with [without?] reference to SC proves impossible as we fear to be the case we hope at least there can be agreement on procedures so that matter will come before SC without procedural debate, with temperate statement each side and with prompt recommendation and action by SC in accordance with agreed procedures. US considers procedural objections by France would be injurious French position, harmful UN prestige, and would only delay settlement border issue; while general consideration of issue by SC might permit unnecessary discussion and possible public adoption divergent positions different member countries.

[Page 1037]

Arrival Siamese delegation Wash to present their case before SC might furnish opportunity for French-Siamese discussions in advance SC consideration. Bidault attitude apparently favoring reference case to International Court and with possibility neutral administration disputed areas pending decision gives us hope agreement at least on procedures could be reached. Basic problem involved would be terms of reference case before Court. Dept not clear on either Brit or French thinking on this point. Do Brit contemplate strictly judicial inquiry into validity 1941 treaty with possibility Siamese might insist on raising validity of earlier treaties or is FonOff considering a procedure under Section 38 Para 2 Court Statute29 which might raise broader questions and even involve Court in rather complex political issues?

Brit Emb informing FonOff briefly US views and inquiring Brit thinking on terms of reference. Brit Emb suggests it might also be helpful for you to discuss this matter in detail with FonOff and you are requested to do so.

Sent London as 5223. Repeated Paris as 3556, Bangkok as 601, and New York as 144.

Byrnes
  1. For text of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, see Department of State Bulletin, June 24, 1945, p. 1134.↩