Editorial Note
Telegram 4873, September 28, 11 a.m., from Paris reported that Mr. Georges-Picot had communicated the nature of the proposed [Page 1085] settlement to officers of the Embassy in France and that the French Foreign Office had been able to prevail on the Overseas Ministry and the Interministerial Committee on Indochina to accept the proposals. The telegram also noted: “There have been strong elements in French Government which, while insisting on retrocession of territories, have vigorously opposed subsequently discussion frontier rectifications with Siamese. Picot formula outlined above, therefore, represented notable progress in direction of moderation and good sense for Foreign Ministry which now earnestly desires an equitable and early solution to problem. With foregoing in mind and since the Picot formula has been largely the result of what French understand we wish them to do, I earnestly hope that when French make this proposal to Siamese the Department will impress on Siamese importance of solving this whole problem now and will strongly discourage any attempts Siamese may make to engage in dilatory or delaying tactics.” (892.014/9–2846)
In a further discussion of the matter in telegram 4910, September 30, 8 p.m., the Embassy at Paris reported information from Mr. Baudet that the French were prepared to be extremely liberal in reestablishing economic relations with Siam and that undoubtedly arrangements could be made to preserve the interests of Khuang Aphaiwong in Battambang (892.014/9–3046).
In a memorandum of October 2 to Mr. Acheson, Mr. Moffat stated: “The French proposals would appear directly in line with the United States position and I believe we should urge Siamese acceptance in principle. In the exercise of our good offices, however, I think it important that we follow in detail the text of any agreement in an effort to secure the most amicable language and fairest settlement of details so as to be sure of Siamese ratification. At our suggestion, the French have already removed from their suggested treaty a number of unrelated clauses which would only irritate the Siamese, but the draft still includes some verbiage to which the Siamese object and which is not essential to the main issue of return of territories and establishment of friendly relations. It would also be important that the French-Siamese Agreement not include any limitation of the ‘grievances’ which the Siamese might submit to conciliation. Under the Geneva Act, the special conciliation commission, which must be appointed within three months and conclude its work within the following six months, is to determine the relevant facts and basic issues in dispute and if a settlement cannot be effected by that commission, the arbitration commission takes up from that point, Presumably, therefore, the conciliation commission would eliminate any wild claims and the French position and future French-Siamese relations [Page 1086] would be strengthened, if such elimination were done not by the French in their treaty but by an international body.” (892.014/10–246)