851G.00/8–2246: Telegram
The Minister in Siam (Stanton) to the Secretary of State
[Received 6:45 p.m.]
973. Deptel 687, August 15.69 1. Every effort has been made to ascertain whether force which attacked Siem Reap was organized in or came from Siamese territory. Impossible thus far to determine precise facts and details of incident and in particular origin of attacking force and possible complicity of Siamese. In this connection, please read Colonel Thompson’s recent telegrams … which summarized reports received by him just prior and subsequent to incident. Phra Phiset, reputedly one of the leaders of free Cambodian movement, is in Bangkok (mytel 948, August 15). He denies any connection with incident although admits great interest in movement. Military and Naval Attachés have been unable to ascertain anything further of real significance. Information available to British military authorities throws no new light on incident or its aims.
2. Incident has been discussed on several occasions with Foreign Minister. He is preparing statement for British and ourselves setting forth numerous communiqués issued by Ministry Interior denying that force came from Siamese territory and outlining measures taken by Siamese Govt such as closing border and arresting number of armed Cambodians allegedly attempting reenter Siamese territory; however, no new or specific information developed in these conversations. Have informed Foreign Minister of our concern over incident and its possible reactions upon present endeavors to bring about amicable settlement of matters in dispute with French. Believe that Siamese [Page 1068] authorities are making earnest effort to prevent Siamese or Cambodians in Siamese territory crossing into French territory in order to avoid further trouble inasmuch as they are aware of serious effect which such incidents are likely to have upon outcome of present negotiations with French.
3. Reference Clarac’s charges (Saigon’s telegram August 1370) that attackers were armed with modern American matériel, Legation does not feel such charges well founded in view of fact that French, British and Siamese military forces all equipped with American matériel which might be obtained by Cambodian “rebels” from any one or all of these forces by devious means. Furthermore, considerable quantities American matériel parachuted into Indochina during war.
4. Reference Clarac’s complaint regarding landing at Siem Reap by Col. Vance without prior authorization, desire to state relations between Military Attaché and Naval Attaché and French border authorities have heretofore been so cordial that prior authorization from Saigon has in most instances not been requested. Military Attaché and Naval Attaché fully realize that they are not accredited to Indochina although desirability of this has been stressed to War and Navy Depts and request made for French agrément through State Dept. They did not mean to offend French authorities and regret unauthorized landing. In future they will of course obtain permission of French authorities and hope to receive permission to return Siem Reap in very near future in company British officer.71
[Here follows paragraph numbered 5, in which Bangkok noted that telegram 973 was forwarded by courier to Saigon but not repeated to London and Paris because of the costs involved.]
- Not printed; it requested Bangkok to report on the Siem Reap incident (892.014/8–1546).↩
- No. 313, not printed.↩
- In telegram 231, August 24, 2 p.m. (811.2351G/8–1346), the Department directed Saigon to reply to Mr. Clarac’s letter, broadly along the lines set forth in paragraphs 3 and 4 of telegram 973.↩