Think Siam Should Make Restitution

Northern Advocate, 21 December 1945, Page 6

Think Siam Should Make Restitution

jCRec. 11.30 a.m.) LONDON. Dec. 20.

Britain’s policy towards Siam is based on a desire to renew as soon as possible the friendly and cordial relations existing before the war and see Siam resume her place as a sovereign independent and prosperous country, said the Under-Secretary for State (Mr Hector McNeil) in the House of Commons.

He welcomed the opportunity of stating Britain’s. policy in view of the very misleading and tendentious statements appearing in the foreign Press. Britain, however, felt entitled to require Siam to take measures of restitution for injury, loss and damage caused British and Allred interests.

A Washington message says Britain has demanded between 1,000,000 and 1,500,000 tons’ of rice as reparations from Siam. This demand and Siam’s role in the South-east Asia security system remained, the only differences between the British and American Governments, says . the “New York Times” correspondent in Washington. “IMPROPER FORM” The United States originally took the position that the demand for rice was an improper form of reparations and unprecedented in any negotiations with the defeated' countries in this war.

The British, however, persisted in asserting that the peoples of Malaya and Burma were desperately short of rice and Siam should make a “gift” in restituation for wrongs done. The United States at present is attempting to scale down the quantity demanded to at least 800,000 tons. The British regard the British-Am-erican dispute over the security system as involving nothing but language, but the State Department considers the difference is one of substance. The United States also feels that the proposal as originally drafted would make Siam a virtual military protectorate under Britain. The British, however, have assured Washington that such was neither their intention nor their desire. U.S. HOPES

The United States was still objecting to the British demands on Siam and hoped the British would, by the dictates of courtesy, sign no agreement with Siam until the current exchanges with the United States were concluded, said the acting-Secretary of State, Mr. Dean Achesori, at a Press conference. “We thiftk we have a definite interest in this matter,” he continued,

“arising partly from the fact that the United .States played a role in the Pacific war which might modestly be described as prominent. This country is entitled to have its views patiently considered. Moreover, there is great sympathy in the • United States with Siam’s effort to develop as an independent and democratic country. “There have been several occasions when the British apparently were near an agreement with the Siamese, but each time Washington reminded London of its hope that no final action would be taken until the British-Am-erican discussions were concluded. “United States officials think and hope that no final agreement has yet been signed,” Mr. Acheson concluded, “but the situation is not as clear as I could wish.” He added that cable receptions had been bad. NO ULTIMATUM The United States Charge d’Affaires in London two days ago called on the British Foreign Office to make representations based on the assumption that “an ultimatum” was delivered by Britain to Siam, says the press Association diplomatic correspondent. The Charge d’Affaires asked for details of the Anglo-Siamese agreement.

The correspondent says that British delivered no such ultimatum.

The- Charge d’Affaires was given the latest proposals made for an agreement with Siam, and it would seem that Mr. Acheson had not received a report of this interview when he made statements to the United States Press to the effect that America asked Britain and Siam not to conclude an agreement until the American views were fully placed before the British Government. (SEE ALSO PAGE 10)