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

892.014/8–146: Telegram

The Acting Secretary of State to the Minister in Siam (Stanton)

secret
u.s. urgent
niact

Washington, August 1, 1946—6 p.m.

642. Deptel 632, July 27.

1. Inform FonOff urgently French have requested US good offices in presenting and urging Siamese acceptance following proposals in effort settle differences within framework and in accordance spirit UN:

A. Both countries agree submit to International Court question “Are the convention of May 9, 1941 concluded at Tokyo as a result of Japanese intercession and the annexation by Siam of certain Indo-Chinese territories sanctioned thereunder, valid from the juridical point of view.” Should Court rule treaty invalid Court also to determine what payments France should make in reimbursement payments made by Siam pursuant 1941 Convention and in compensation improvements made during Siamese occupation and to determine payments Siam should make on account damages arising from Siamese occupation.

B. Both countries agree upon an interim administration under third power, preferably US, auspices pending Court decision in order preserve rights and prestige both parties and prevent any political or economic action prejudicial either party. In this connection preliminary French proposal, subject amplification, is Siam should withdraw top Siamese administrative and police officials responsible to Central Govt and an American should be appointed by US as Conservator, presumably with some American staff, and possibly assisted by small group especially appointed Siamese, Cambodian/Laotian and French officials.

C. If agreement with Siam reached on points A and B above France will (a) consider state of war terminated and be prepared immediately resume normal relations with Siam and (b) not oppose Siamese application membership UN.

D. If through United States good offices Siamese Govt agrees in principle to French proposals, France will negotiate and conclude details with Siamese delegation on its arrival Wash.

E. It is understood of course if agreement is reached along foregoing lines Secretary General will be informed and Siam will withdraw its complaint to SC.

2. US has carefully considered French proposals and sincerely recommends Siamese acceptance. It considers following advantages accrue Siam: A. Whole proposal lies within UN framework as Siamese desire and does not involve bilateral determination. B. There will be impartial judicial determination validity 1941 treaty and if this declared invalid a judicial determination on questions of reimbursement and damages. C. Siam need not retrocede territories to France pending Court decision and only then if Court rules treaty invalid. D. Siamese Govt avoids any admission doubt as to validity 1941 treaty. E. Way remains open Siam raise boundary question through UN if treaty is declared invalid and subsequent French-Siamese conversations fail produce agreement. F. State of war with France terminated at once without peace treaty and normal relations with France immediately resumed. G. Known obstacle admission Siam membership UN Sep meeting Assembly eliminated.

Siamese rejection might we believe prejudice Siamese position in world opinion and would weaken Siamese case before SC as indicating Siamese unwillingness accept a procedure peaceful solution contemplated Art 33. Dept reiterates view border incidents insufficient justify SC consideration, especially in view both French and Siamese pledges use maximum efforts avoid further incidents. We consider disputed territories only immediate basic issue and are now convinced SC would not undertake draft or recommend new boundary. Furthermore serious procedural issues have developed since Deptel 2 to AmPolAd Jan 2. French interpretation Art 35 (2) (Deptel 613, July 23) has not yet been tested. No agreement has yet been achieved in SC on whether determination parties to a dispute requires procedural or substantive vote. Whether in fact there exists a dispute continuance of which is likely endanger peace does require substantive vote. Even if Siam hurdled all these obstacles including possibility of veto at some stage, it is impossible forecast position which members SC would take. Dept believes Siam would gain no more by pressing its case before SC than it would by accepting French proposal. Furthermore, France would doubtless consider state of war continuing until separate peace treaty concluded and Siamese admission UN might be indefinitely delayed.

3. With reference proposed interim administration, if both Siam and France so desire, US in effort effect peaceful solution willing designate an American with small staff to act as Conservator of disputed territories pending Court decision, it being understood both countries would publicly pledge full support and cooperation such administration. Our view is Conservator would of course utilize existing administrative machinery less such top Siamese officials as are withdrawn for symbolic reasons but would have veto power over any orders of Central Govt which he considered prejudicial interests either party. He might replace any official who failed to cooperate or work efficiently with interim administration and he might take affirmative action which he considered necessary achieve objectives of interim administration.

4. Dept believes UN prestige would gain by such agreement for prompt settlement of dispute as result of Siamese complaint. Furthermore, such agreement would avoid possibility difficult and protracted procedural debates which could harm UN which is still formative stage. Dept also considers it important to basic aims UN to minimize possible divergent public positions being taken by SC members and avoid unnecessary or extraneous discussions which might increase international illwill especially during the Peace Conference.

5. For your guidance and use if question raised, Dept without passing on merits 1907 treaty⁴³ believes it would be unfortunate to international relations to have challenged validity of a treaty so long existing. It believes rectification of old treaties should be sought by peaceful means basis present considerations; not by challenging historic acts prior generations. It believes Court would feel impelled invoke theory equivalent statute limitations and all nations would oppose reexamination of validity of treaties of long standing. No country has impeccable record and each would fear if one treaty 40 years old were successfully challenged on grounds aggression, other treaties 50 or 100 years old could similarly be challenged.

6. US Govt earnestly urges Siamese Govt agree in principle to French proposals and authorize its delegation negotiate details and conclude agreements with French representatives on its arrival Wash. Reference cases to International Court are always by special agreements called compromis setting forth matters for decision. Other proposals should, we believe, be by special agreements or appropriate declarations by appropriate Govts and whole understanding included in joint communiqué issued Wash. US believes such communiqué should also include reiteration of intent both Govts use maximum efforts avoid further border incidents and seek settlement any other or future differences by peaceful amicable discussion.

7. Dept informing Siamese Leg⁴⁴ substance foregoing paragraphs (except paragraph 5) in case Chargé desires inform and secure for info his Govt views of Donovan⁴⁵ whom Siamese have retained as counsel.

8. Telegraph Siamese decision soonest for transmittal French Govt.

9. Sent Bangkok as 642. Repeated Paris as 3789 with request forward courier London.⁴⁶

Acheson

43. Treaty between France and Siam signed at Bangkok on March 23, 1907, Foreign Relations, 1907, pt. 2, p. 1003.
44. In a memorandum of August 2, Mr. Moffat stated: “Mr. Bhakdi called at my request and I gave him a paraphrase of the pertinent parts of Department telegram 642, August 1, to Bangkok. With reference to the January 2 telegram to Bangkok mentioned therein I explained that that telegram had been sent long before the Security Council was organized and indicated our hope that the Siamese border problem, if submitted to UNO, could be settled on the intrinsic merits of the border question and the desires of the peoples concerned and our belief at the time that under Article 35 France would not be able to block action on a dispute brought by Siam. I stated that I did not know if the views expressed in that telegram had been conveyed to the Siamese Government, but that our views as to possible Security Council action had changed very considerably as indicated in the telegram since its organization and since it had begun to function.” (892.014/8–146)
45. Maj. Gen. William J. Donovan, of the law firm of Donovan, Leisure, Newton and Lumbard, New York.
46. In telegram 5804, August 2, 6 p.m., the Department notified London that a paraphrase of telegram 642, except for paragraphs 2, 4, and 5, had been given to the British and French Embassies (892.014/8–146).