FRANCE AND SIAM. (Hansard, 13 May 1902)

§ * LORD LAMINGTON
My Lords, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can say when the French are going to comply with their obligations to evacuate Chantaboon, whether their continued occupation is due to the Siamese not having fulfilled their pledges, and whether any representations on the subject have been made to the French Government. This is only part of the much larger question of the future of Indo-China, which depends to a great extent on the evacuation of Chantaboon, for so long as the French occupy that port, so long will there be a grievance on the part of the Siamese Government. The registration of natives by the French, the grievance on the part of the French that Frenchmen are not taken into the Siamese service, the difficulties arising from the frontier on the right or western bank of the Mekong—all these various points are naturally fruitful sources of trouble; but they are aggravated by the continued occupation of Chantaboon by the French. The 25-kilometre zone has played a large part in this question. On August 1st, 1893, the Earl of Rosebery, who was then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, read out part of the terms of the second ultimatum accepted that day, which were these— (1) French to occupy port and river of Chantaboon pending evacuation of left bank 15 of Mekong by Siam; (2) no Siamese troops to be allowed within twenty-five kilomètres of Mekong. It may, therefore, be taken that when once the Siamese had completely evacuated the twenty-five kilomètre zone the obligation rested on the French to evacuate Chantaboon. That this was so was construed by Sir Edward Grey, who said in the House of Commons that the French Government had stated repeatedly that the occupation of Chantaboon was of a temporary character. He was more precise on another date, when, in reply to Mr. (now Lord) Curzon, he said— Explicit assurances have been received from the French Government that they are most desirous of leaving the place at the earliest opportunity, and that the French forces will not remain a day after the Siamese have fulfilled their obligations under the Treaty. Asked whether they might expect that the evacuation would occur as soon as that condition had been carried out, Sir Edward Grey replied— Yes, that is the only possible interpretation which can be placed on the assurances of the French Government. Therefore I take it that the Government of that day felt assured that, when the Siamese had complied with their obligations, Chantaboon would be evacuated. The French, however, are still there; and the Siamese naturally regard it as an insult that this important port should be held by foreigners. The port itself is within striking distance of Bangkok, and it has a paralysing effect on the Siamese to know that a great Power which directs envious eyes to the richer portions of their country should be in possession of a port so near to their capital. The obligations have been carried out on the one side, but not on the other. I do not know whether in International Law a prescriptive right is recognised, but certainly the French would seem to be acquiring one when, the conditions of the other party having been fulfilled, they still remain in occupation without excuse. I am sure the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is fully alive to the gravity of the situation, but, at the same time, those who are commercially interested in Siam and those who study Eastern questions would 16 very much like to know whether there is any prospect of this objection on the part of the French being carried out shortly. We have suffered so much in regard to our interests in Indo-China through neglect to embrace opportunities that I feel I am justified in bringing this question before the House today. It is not fifteen years ago that advances were made to our Government on the part of the French to preserve the complete integrity and independence of Siam. But, either through our indifference or lack of appreciation of the situation, we took no action, with the result that four or five years afterwards there was that great act of aggression on the part of the French, when we ourselves were brought nearer into conflict with France than at any other time since the period of the great war at the commencement of the last century. Further, we suffered an enormous blow to our prestige in that part of the world; our commercial enterprise received a check; we had to witness Siam, in whose independence we are vitally interested, despoiled of portions of her territory, and, moreover, so forced into a treaty which so bristled with ragged edges that at any opportune time there were abundant opportunities for further aggression. It is because I wish to guard against future danger that I desire to see a fruitful source of trouble removed at the earliest possible moment by the evacuation of Chantaboon.

§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE)
I am afraid I shall not be able to give my noble friend all the enlightenment he desires upon this important subject. He evidently knows that the differences between France and Siam are of very long standing. Their history is intricate, and the present situation is still, I am afraid, somewhat obscure. It is the case that in 1893 the Siamese Government entered into a treaty and convention with the Government of France, under which the Siamese ceded to France a very considerable portion of Siamese territory lying on the eastern bank of the Mekong. The Siamese Government also undertook that they would evacuate a zone, 25 kilomètres in depth, following 17 the course of the Mekong, and not maintain any armed force within that region. On the other hand, the French Government, in the convention, announced in the plainest language that it was their intention to remain in the occupation of Chantaboon, which they held at the moment, until such time as the whole of the stipulations of the convention had been complied with by the Siamese. We understand that at the present time it is alleged by the French Government that several of these stipulations have not yet been complied with. They are numerous, and I do not think any useful purpose would be served if I were to particularise them. Two matters in particular are in dispute, first, the question whether or not the 25-kilometre zone has been completely evacuated; and, secondly, the extremely difficult and troublesome question of registration. The point is this. The French claim to retain authority over persons of Annamite and Cambodian descent, residing on the western or Siamese side of the Mekong.

§ LORD LAMINGTON
And Chinese, too.

§ * THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE
These matters are in dispute between the French and Siamese Governments; and I do not think it possible for His Majesty's Government, in such circumstances, to undertake to decide between the two parties, or to state on which side the right lies. Nor have we thought that the occasion was one for making any representation to the French Government. Having said that much, I can only add that I share with the noble Lord the interest which he takes in this subject. I realise its great importance to the peace of the regions which are the scene of these events; and I can assure him that none will be better pleased than His Majesty's Government if these differences should be composed, and if it should be found possible for the French Government to restore Chantaboon to its legitimate owners. Nothing that has been said by the French Government, so far as I am aware, has ever pointed to the conclusion that they intended their occupation 18 to be permanent; on the contrary, the very language of the Convention suggests a different inference, and upon several occasions it has been stated of persons of high official position in the service of the French Government that it was their intention to restore Chantaboon to the Siamese as soon as the stipulations of the Convention of 1893 had been completely fulfilled.