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

892.014/8–546

Memorandum of Conversation, by the Acting Chief of the Division of Western European Affairs (Wallner)

[Washington,] August 6, 1946.

Participants:	Mr. Henri Bonnet, the French Ambassador;
	Mr. Acheson, Acting Secretary of State;
	Mr. Moffat, Chief, SEA;
	Mr. Wallner, Acting Chief, WE.

Mr. Acheson invited Mr. Bonnet to call in order to discuss the situation created by French insistence on modifying their proposals for the interim administration of the disputed territories. He made two points:

(1) That we had heard through the French Embassy and through our Embassy at Paris,⁵³ that the French Foreign Office was not satisfied with the proposals for interim administration that he had worked out with Mr. Bonnet and that the French now insisted that they wished all Siamese officials, both administrative and police, withdrawn from the territories. He stated that we were willing to transmit these new French proposals to the Siamese as soon as they were received in writing, but that we could not recommend their acceptance by the Siamese, and that furthermore, we should be obliged to withdraw our offer to appoint a conservator or otherwise participate in the interim administration;

(2) Our Embassy in Paris had gained the impression from talks at the Foreign Office that the latter had become lukewarm to the idea of judicial settlement by the court and might possibly abandon the idea altogether. If this were true, we should like to have it confirmed as soon as possible since we did not wish to continue to use our good offices in support of proposals which the French Government might withdraw. He made it clear that the situation was becoming embarrassing.

Taking up the second point first, Mr. Bonnet said that he had received no intimation that his Government was abandoning the idea of judicial settlement. He could confirm, however, that his Foreign Office was insistent concerning the withdrawal of all Siamese police and administrative officers and asked whether we had given any intimation of this to the Siamese, He was informed that we had hesitated to do so since we had not received the proposals in writing and since we were not sure that the French Government realized that we probably would have to withdraw our offer to participate in the interim administration.

Mr. Bonnet then explained that what had particularly disturbed the French Foreign Office had been our views (contained in numbered paragraph 3 of instructions to Bangkok) which appeared to imply that the Central Siamese Government would continue during the interim period to administer the territories subject to the veto of the conservator.

Mr. Acheson said that his understanding of the conservator’s function was that he should oversee the administration of the territories on the basis of such existing Siamese laws and regulations as in his opinion were not discriminatory of French rights. He added that we did not interpret this paragraph as meaning that new orders and instructions to local officials in the territories would flow in from Bangkok. Mr. Bonnet said that he imagined that his Foreign Office had placed a different interpretation on this portion of our instructions, but that he would immediately convey to his Government Mr. Acheson’s understanding, which he thought would go a long way in clearing up the misunderstanding.

There was further discussion concerning the advisibility of our intimating to the Siamese the nature of the new French proposals. It was pointed out that the Siamese Delegation had departed. Mr. Bonnet indicated that he did not feel that we should yet withdraw our offer to appoint a conservator, but expressed the hope that we might alert our Minister in Bangkok as to recent developments. However, he left this to Mr. Acheson’s discretion and stated that he would communicate the sense of this conversation to his Government with the hope that something concrete would be forthcoming in the near future.⁵⁴

53. Telegram 3855, August 5, 9 p.m., not printed; in addition to giving generally the information covered in the two numbered paragraphs of Mr. Wallner’s memorandum, it stated: “Baudet said that information had been received that Prince Vanvaidyakorn had approached the British representative in Bangkok with the suggestion that secret and direct negotiations between Siamese and French officials should take place ‘in the corridors of UNO’ and that if agreement could be reached it should be recognized and proclaimed by the Security Council. In commenting on this, Baudet said that while French would never negotiate with Vanvaidyakorn, who was present at the Tokyo negotiations and signed the treaty for the transfer of the disputed territories, they would probably not refuse to negotiate with a more acceptable Siamese representative, particularly if the proposals for the reference of the disputed territories to the International Court should come to naught.” (892.014/8–546) “Vanvaidyakorn” is an alternative transliteration of “Wan Waithayakon”.
54. This memorandum of conversation was summarized in telegram 3898, August 7, noon, to Paris, which concluded with the following paragraph: “Please attempt ascertain Fr reaction this conversation presumably fully reported by Bonnet, emphasizing we are disturbed apparent Fr dilatoriness and indecision. Siamese acceptance in principle original proposals (Deptel 3895) being communicated Fr Emb here.” (892.014/8–546) Telegram 3895, August 7, 10 a.m., gave the text of telegram 908, August 6, from Bangkok, supra.