Terms for Siam

Press, Volume LXXXI, Issue 24751, 17 December 1945, Page 4

Terms for Siam

Although the Bangkok correspondent of “ The Times ”, writing at the beginning of October, expected that a peace treaty between Siam and the Allies would soon ” be evolved, it has yet to become apparent that the Allies are agreed on the terms. According to the “ New York “ Times ” correspondent in Washington, reported last week, the terms Britaih wishes to impose are said to be drastic, and the United States Government seeks to have them modified. Britain’s view, he adds, is that Siam should be treated as an enemy country; the United States, however, regards her as a nation to be liberated. It is true that the United States Government has shown itself disposed to forgiveness. It swiftly and graciously accepted Siam’s repudiation, in mid-August, of her declaration of war on Britain and the United States, the Secretary of State, Mr James Byrnes, remarking that his Government had always believed that the declaration did not represent the will of the people. The British Government, however, has never acknowledged Siam’s annulment. Too much should not be made of that silence. For one thing, the Siamese military mission which came to Admiral Mountbatten’s headquarters to arrange for Siam’s formal surrender was received as if it were a group of “ visiting dignitaries The reason became apparent a week later, with the announcement by the United States Office of Strategic Services that Siamese notables, among them the Regent, the Prime Minister, and the Minister of Education, had helped the Allies to establish an intelligence service in the country and had built up an underground resistance movement with which the British and American Governments were in regular contact. It is difficult, then, to believe that Britain wants to impose, as the “ New York ” Times ” correspondent suggests, the rigorous peace that an Axis satellite could expect. But it may well be that the terms Britain would offer are less generous than those America would favour. Until 1932 Siam was ruled by absolute monarchs. In that year a bloodless revolution gave her a constitution which promised democracy; but in fact power passed to an alliance of one group of genuine liberals, led by the present Regent, Luang Pradit, and another group of army officers, led by Luang Pibul, Always a precarious alliance, it broke down in 1938. By 1939, Luang Pibul was mas-

ter, and it was he who accepted Japan’s overlordship and encouraged the people to accept it. Siam now has as Prime Minister Seni Pramoj, its former Minister to the United States and the leader of the Free Thai movement which sprang up in the United States .in December, 1941. The Free Thai movement was encouraged by the State Department and is pledged “ to restore con- '■ stitutional government and democracy ”. But Sir Josiah Crosby, Britain’s Minister in Bangkok during the period of Siam’s constitutional experiment, believes that one of the essentials of the peace with Siam is to break the power of the military, “ which has had so “ harmful an influence on her infant

“ struggles towards democratic gov- ” eminent ”. Whether Seni Pramoj can be rehed on to fulfil his pledge without Allied supervision is questionable. For with the change of Government that in July of 'last year brought Allied sympathisers to Cabinet office there emerged as Commander-in-Chief of the Siamese army Phya Bahol, who led Siam in 1932 bn to her course of “ demo- “ cracy ” and steered her along it until a commercial scandal forced his resignation in 1938.