Office of the Historian

542. Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in Thailand1

Washington, February 3, 1960—6:21 p.m.

1995. For Ambassador from Parsons. Embtel 2079.2 Re Sarit comments cited reftel, Thai sensitivity re comparative aid levels has, as you know, always been and will continue to be major factor taken into account in our annual pie slicing process. I personally feel we did very well by Thailand in FY 1960 considering funds available. Sarit’s letter to you (Embdes 290)3 seems to confirm this. Your successful efforts keep Thai dissatisfaction within reasonable limits strongly commended. Recognize that key to future aid relationships lies in solution [Page 1112] DLF problem, which has been delayed because of absence Dillon and Brand from Washington. Dillon now studying problem and plans discuss with Brand this week-end.

Maximum disposal Title I PL 480 rice would be 325,000 tons during current marketing year. FYI. However sales to Pakistan and Afghanistan doubtful. End FYI. We in FE continue fully alive to problem PL 480 rice causes in our relations SEA rice producers.4

Yen loan in final stages formal approval and awaits action by NAC and BOB. We following closely.

DOD notified CINCPAC in December re approval F86F’s for FY ‘60. DOD has sent message CINCPAC asking about delay.5

[Here follows a 1-line paragraph on another subject.]

Herter
  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 792.5–MSP/1–2960. Secret; Priority; Limit Distribution. Drafted by Robert G. Cleveland; cleared with SEA and FE and with ICA, U/MSC, and the Department of Defense; and approved by Parsons. Repeated to CINCPAC for POLAD.↩
  2. In telegram 2079, January 29, the Embassy again called attention to complaints from Sarit on the insufficiency of U.S. aid and on the problems caused by U.S. sales of rice to Asian countries under P. L. 480. (Ibid., 792.5–MSP/1–2960)↩
  3. See footnote 2, Document 535.↩
  4. On February 9 in Bangkok, Ambassador Johnson issued a statement on U.S. rice policy in Asia designed to allay concerns that sales of U.S. rice under P.L. 480 were detrimental to the Thai economy and the welfare of Thai farmers; for text, see Department of State Bulletin, March 7, 1960, pp. 363–364.↩
  5. See footnote 3, Document 536.↩